Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL

Order for Third reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 14 December.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Ambulance Dispute

Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet representatives of ambulance staff to discuss pay and conditions.

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the National Health Service ambulance service.

Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding ambulance men's pay.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The pay and conditions of ambulance staff are the responsibility of the NHS management executive and I have no intention of meeting staff representatives myself to discuss this with them.
As for the future of the ambulance service, health authorities will remain responsible for operational arrangements.

Mr. McKay: Will the Secretary of State give his blessing to the talks that are likely to take place on Thursday? Will he assure the House that neither he nor any Government Department will interfere with those talks in any way, and that any increase will not have to be met from the existing budget but will be Government-funded? Failing that, should we not take the matter to arbitration and stop pussyfooting about?

Mr. Clarke: I followed with interest the announcement of a fresh meeting on Thursday, which I heard of when I left the Chamber last night. The management made its final offer to the trade unions in the Whitley council and the other negotiating body last week. The management made it clear this morning that its last offer is final. Nevertheless, it has agreed to talks, and I hope that Mr. Poole will have something new to say when he arrives at the talks on Thursday.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that approximately 10 per cent. of ambulance

service work deals with emergencies and that approximately 90 per cent. is important but routine transportation? If that is the case, does it not make sense to respond to demands for parity with the other emergency services by restricting parity to those who provide an emergency service? Does he agree that, not to put too fine a point on it, NUPE's record on public service industrial disruption is second to none?

Mr. Clarke: The final offer made by management last week would provide £500 each year on top of the general offer for those with paramedical training. People involved in the service tell me that they are sure that the future lies in developing the accident and emergency part of the service and giving the necessary training, status and pay that follow to those who require it. Northumbria and Wiltshire have found that the same rules need not apply to the important but routine services that account for 90 per cent. of the work. NUPE's campaign reminds me of some of its other activities. The union has taken extreme action against patients from time to time in the past.

Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Conservative and Opposition Members who are concerned about the NHS should oppose industrial action under any circumstances? Does he further agree that the best way in which people can have their claims reasonably considered by management is to withdraw any form of industrial action?

Mr. Clarke: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. In comments on the dispute, it has sometimes been lightly assumed that people who fall outside the TUC guidelines and are not emergency cases can lose the service without suffering hardship. Many elderly and sick patients have great difficulty getting to hospital for the treatment that they require, because of the industrial action that has been targeted at them. That is no way to solve problems of pay and conditions in the NHS. For that reason, management was right to keep revising its offer until it put forward the final offer which, I am glad to say, is still being considered by one of the trade unions involved.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to pay tribute to the ambulance staff in London who have maintained a 999 service without pay for the past two months, while the Army and police simply could not cope? Does he think that the best way of dealing with the problems of the ambulance service in London is to pay and equip the staff properly and stop abusing them and trying to break the union and the dispute as he has done?

Mr. Clarke: I gladly pay tribute to the work of the ambulance service in London and elsewhere when it is working normally, as it was until the dispute started. Obviously, we are grateful to it for the accident, emergency and other services that we are accustomed to it providing. But the idea that it continues to offer those services in London is a myth that has been completely exploded by events. We should also pay tribute to the Army, the police and the members of St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross. The people of London must be grateful to them for the provision of the accident and emergency services which the trade unions sought to deny them.

Mr. Shersby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is already a significant pay differential


between ambulance staff with paramedical skills and those without? Does he further agree that that fact has not come out during the dispute?

Mr. Clarke: There is, and the offer by management concentrates on recognising those skills yet further. That has not been brought out; nor have many other facts. The figure of 6·5 per cent. is no longer used by anybody, but until recently it was being trailed about as the offer made to ambulance men in London. The present 18-month offer is worth at least 9 per cent. to everybody, but for those people in London who acquire the paramedical skills that we want more people to have, it is worth more than 16 per cent. That is why I trust that on Thursday the unions will tell management that they accept the offer.

Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the week before Christmas the London ambulance service can receive 200 calls an hour? How can the Government hope to respond to those calls with only 100 Army and police vehicles? Does the Secretary of State realise that Thursday's talks are the last chance to make sure that those calls are answered, and that he cannot leave it all to Roger Poole to make a success of the talks?
Has the Secretary of State yet answered the letter from the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), a Minister of this Government, who has written from the safety of his constituency to say that he can see the logic of the ambulance staff claim? If the Secretary of State cannot even convince the man who was once his Parliamentary Private Secretary, is it not time that he stopped pretending that everybody but himself is wrong about the dispute?

Mr. Clarke: I would take the hon. Gentleman's concern about the accident and emergency service in London more seriously if he would condemn the actions of those who have withdrawn it and made it necessary for the police, Army and voluntary bodies to provide that necessary service. I am astonished that Labour Members are prepared to maintain the fiction—that the service is being offered by the unions—which union leaders have largely abandoned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) may not yet have received a reply from me. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to purport that my hon. Friend supports the ambulance men's industrial action, I do not believe him. The information on which he relies sounds like the same sort of partial quotation that has come from too many people in the trade union and Labour movement during this dispute.

NHS Reform

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest figure he has for the number of hospitals, health districts and specialist units which have expressed an interest in becoming a self-governing National Health Service hospital trust.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: One hundred and eighty-eight units have expressed interest in NHS trust status, including a number with more than one hospital. Seventy-nine of those units intend to proceed with preparing applications for the first wave, of trusts, which we would expect to be established in April 1991. However, applications will not be invited until Parliament has approved the necessary legislation.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition's scaremongering, directed almost entirely at senior citizens, has proved to be complete nonsense and that hospital trusts will be publicly owned and paid for by the taxpayer? Will he confirm that the campaign of preprinted cards which Labour Members told us would arrive at the Department in their millions has been a complete shambles, with only about 50,000 arriving? Does that not show that Conservatives are the caring party and Labour the scaring party?

Mr. Clarke: The NHS trusts will be NHS hospitals providing free treatment paid for from taxation. Local people who run them will strive to improve the service, particularly to elderly people, because theirs is the fastest-growing area of demand to which an ever-growing amount of resources will be distributed. I agree with my hon. Friend that the cards were a complete fiasco. Back in August I read accounts of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) promising me hundreds of thousands of them. In the end, even with the complete membership of the Labour party undoubtedly filling in and buying the postage stamps for as many as possible, they could produce only 50,000.

Mr. Kennedy: The Secretary of State is fond of saying that self-governing trusts will enhance patient choice. He will agree that for that to make any sense, a proper information system must be available. There have been reports that some of those considering self-governing trust status have submitted figures to the Department of Health suggesting that some hospitals will require as much as £3 million to upgrade computer systems. What estimate has the Department made of the proper systems technology that will be required for the aims to which it aspires in the proposals to be reached?

Mr. Clarke: The entire National Health Service requires investment in information technology. Quite apart from the White Paper, it will be necessary for this giant organisation to invest in catching up on modern methods of collecting management information and then using it. It is not necessary for our reforms for there to be vast investment in computers and software ahead of the 1991 implementation. The development of computers and software should proceed at a sensible pace with systems being worked up and proved in practice before they are widely adopted. As we develop the idea of NHS trusts, we shall explain to those interested that they should not be misled into believing that millions of pounds worth of information technology are a prerequisite of a more sensible method of matching resources to patients in the service.

Mr. Flannery: Why does not the Secretary of State admit that it is useless to massage the facts and figures about hospitals showing an interest, as he calls it? I wrote to the Secretary of State asking for the names of the people in Sheffield hospitals who had shown an interest so that I could provide them to all the people of Sheffield. The Under-Secretary of State replied that that information was private. Eventually, we met representatives of Sheffield health authority, which admitted that a group of working parties composed only of consultants had asked for it—

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.

Mr. Flannery: There is no democracy in that. It is a travesty of the truth. Why does not the Mininister come clean?

Mr. Clarke: If and when we receive a formal application for self-governing status from Sheffield or anywhere else, it will be worked up by those sponsoring it and subjected to public consultation next summer. There is no point in the hon. Gentleman trying to get partial information at this stage about expressions of interest which he no doubt wishes to see to confuse still further the political debate that he is trying to set off in Sheffield. The hon. Gentleman should wait until we have proper applications that explain what the proposal is really about. That will make it more difficult for the hon. Gentleman and his friends to go on about opting out of the National Health Service and other such nonsense.

Patient Services

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there has been any experience within the National Health Service of using contracts for patient services.

Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of contracts for patient services within the National Health Service.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): We believe that about 60 per cent. of health authorities have used contracts to obtain patient services from the public and private sectors. As part of the development work to prepare for the implementation of "Working For Patients", the Department is currently supporting projects working on various aspects of contracts.

Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend will recall that yesterday's debate and my contribution to it emphasised the importance of raising quality and standards in the National Health Service as it moves forward. Will he confirm that contracts placed by district health authorities will have to take account of service standards and quality of care as well as cost? Does he agree that they will enhance the power of general practitioners, as they will be consulted and the new system will have to reflect their referral patterns?

Mr. Freeman: I very much agree with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] It is no great surprise. A great advantage of contracts is that the health authorities, which will be responsible for drawing them up, will be able to specify quality targets for the supply of not only hospital services but community health services.

Mr. Amos: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, under the proposals to improve the Health Service, district health authorities such as those in Northumberland would be obliged to maintain a reserve of resources to meet the demands of special cases? Will he confirm that that will satisfy the criteria relating to GPs' freedom of referral and patient choice?

Mr. Freeman: I can confirm that. We expect health authorities to begin consulting GPs about the existing referral pattern of their patients now, so that the authorities can draw up contracts reflecting that pattern. Given that referrals may take place outside the contract

pattern, a contingency fund will be provided in all health authorities—including those in my hon. Friend's constituency—to cover such non-contractual referrals.

Dr. Kim Howells: How are local health authorities supposed to place contracts with anyone when they are in a position like that of the authority in my constituency? It has already spent £1·5 million over its budget, and is so desperately short of resources that it has no beds for victims of the current flu epidemic.

Mr. Freeman: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State recently announced an increase of 8·4 per cent. in cash terms for the hospital and community health services next year. That is a substantial increase in the resources available to district health authorities. After April 1991, health authorities will have the job of placing contracts to acquire health services, and they will have the resources to do that.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Given his previous answer, will the Minister join me, and a consultant at the Freeman hospital in my constituency, in condemning as wild and bizarre the decision to spend about £200,000 transferring heart patients from that centre of excellence in Newcastle to Wythenshawe in Manchester? What a waste of money. Should not the money be invested in the region?

Mr. Freeman: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a supra-regional service. People who require complicated heart operations should not necessarily seek service within their own districts; such complicated and expensive treatment should be provided as quickly as possible wherever it can best be provided.

Dentists

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists are employed by the National Health Service now and in 1979.

Mr. Freeman: There were 15,300 dentists in the National Health Service in England in 1979, and just over 18,000 last year.

Mr. French: The whole House will welcome the excellent news about additional resources for dentistry. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that means that the teeth of the nation—particularly those of the nation's children—are receiving more attention and are consequently in better condition, and does he agree that that is a good reason for smiles all round?

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can confirm that, over the past 10 years, the teeth of the nation have been in far better shape. There has been a dramatic reduction in decay caused by dental caries in children under the age of 16—a fall of about 40 per cent. between 1973 and 1983—and a reduction in the number of adults with false teeth from about 30 per cent. in 1978 to about 20 per cent. in 1988.

Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Minister accept that people are not smiling so much in Scotland? Although it is not his responsibility, he will understand that Scots are angry about the closure of Edinburgh dental school. Will he have a word with his Scottish colleagues, and advise them to keep the school on? We need it: it is important to the health of Scotland's people.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman should take a broader national view. The number of dentists that Britain will need over the next two decades will increase, but at present we are training too many.

Miss Emma Nicholson: As one who spent the morning at the dentist, I am not sure that I welcome extra money being spent on dentistry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of dentistry courses has increased dramatically over 10 years,—from 27 million to 32 million—which is a welcome sign that the expense of dentistry is clearly not putting people off having their teeth repaired?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right. There are more courses, and people are going to the dentist more often. The use of fluoride toothpaste, particularly by children, has made a big difference to the health of their teeth.

Community Care

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the White Paper on community care; and if he will summarise the views expressed.

Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the community care White Paper.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): We have received several representations following publication of our White Paper "Caring for People: Community Care in the Next Decade and Beyond." Most have expressed a general welcome for our proposals.

Mr. Cohen: Have there not been many protests about the proposal to privatise care for the elderly? Are the Government not about to treat home helps in the same way as National Health Service cleaners, by undercutting the low-paid and penny-pinching in the service that they provide? Why is it that the care of the elderly and the disadvantaged is acceptable to the Government only if it makes a profit?

Mrs. Bottomley: Unlike Opposition Members, the Government have no obsession about the ownership of services to help the elderly and the frail. We are establishing a framework of care for the next decade and beyond. Individuals want their needs to be properly assessed and choice of provision. Wherever possible, they want to stay in their own homes. We want resources to be used effectively and properly, high standards to be maintained and choice and dignity provided to those who need care.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister clarify the Government's intentions regarding section 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which was so ably promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke)? Also, if in the words of the White Paper,
promoting choice and independence underlies all the Government's proposals",
will the Minister accept amendments to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill to allow local authorities to pay disabled people to employ the personal assistants they so often need to preserve their

independence? If the Bill becomes law, just how much are the Government prepared to spend on community care during its first year of implementation?

Mrs. Bottomley: The existing provision for disabled people will be unchanged by the introduction of our proposals for care in the communiy. What is important is that all people will have their needs assessed before care is provided.
As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, the key aim is to provide effective care and to make plans in collaboration with health authorities. The local authorities have been given the responsibility to provide care in the community. They will be required to produce and publish their plans. But it is important that they should work closely with health authorities to ensure that disabled people, whom the right hon. Gentleman has championed so greatly over the years, receive the services that he and I wish them to have.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a crying shame that community care proposals have been tagged on to a Bill that relates to the NHS, when community care relates mainly to local government? Will my hon. Friend, and my right hon. and learned Friend, consider ring fencing community care expenditure so that it is not lost within the general expenditure allocated to local government?

Mrs. Bottomley: I resent my hon. Friend's comment that these matters are being "tagged on" to the end of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. In my view, they are extremely important proposals. The Bill provides an ideal opportunity to establish our plans for those who need health care alongside the plans for those who need social care—a group that my hon. Friend, too, has championed greatly over the years.
As for my hon. Friend's question about a specific grant, the key point is that we want to establish local accountability and flexibility. We want to promote diversity according to local needs and opportunities. If my hon. Friend is concerned that local authorities may not arise to the opportunity and the challenge, I point out to him and to others that this is a moment for which they have long waited. Local authorities will be entrusted with these responsibilities. They will be required to produce and publish their plans. We intend to ensure that they deliver everything that my hon. Friend and I wish them to deliver.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree—

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Members who have just come in should realise that it is bad form to walk in front of the hon. Member for Newbury when he is asking a question.

Mr. Skinner: Send them to Sardinia.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Settle down please.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that voluntary bodies such as the Children's Society are disappointed that the provisions of the NHS and Community Care Bill do not consider the needs of carers and users of the services, and that there is no scope for the incorporation of review and complaints procedures in the current draft of the Bill? Does my hon. Friend intend to


add those to the Bill at a later date, or will she bring forward a code of good practice that will be published after the Bill becomes law?

Mrs. Bottomley: I urge my hon. Friend to look at the White Paper again, because explicit mention is made of the needs of carers, and the important part that they play. We are working closely with voluntary organisations and local authority associations so that when we bring forward a code of practice they will give the recognition to carers that he and I want them to be given.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister take a second opportunity to reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who asked a specific question about the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986? How many people have made representations supporting the full implementation of the Act, and how many of them supported sections 1, 2 and 3 which give rights to consumers and carers? Or do the Government take the view that community care is everybody else's responsibility—the independent sector, voluntary organisations and carers—but not theirs?

Mrs. Bottomley: The Bill offers a major step forward for carers and consumers of services. We have made it very clear that an assessment will be required before care can be provided. We are turning our backs on the old system, in which the provision of resources was often irrelevant to the needs of the individual. Frequently, under the system it was more likely that residential care was provided, rather than the domiciliary care that is often more appropriate, and more in line with the dignity of the individual. Our measures move on from the disabled persons Act, but we shall continue to review it. The Bill will be a major step forward, and will provide an opportunity to hear the views of consumers and carers.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that we do not need ring fences in community care, but we need the local authorities to concentrate on their responsibilities, and to bring down the ring fences that stop voluntary bodies, such as Crossroads, playing a full role?

Mrs. Bottomley: One of the difficulties with ring fences is that they tend to lock services in a historical framework. We want collaboration and innovation, with various agencies working together to ensure that a better service is provided for the frail and the disabled.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister kindly tell us what plans exist to increase the number of occupational therapists in the community? There is already a shortage in hospitals, and if more people are to go into community care, will more also be required in the community?

Mrs. Bottomley: I can say that there has been a substantial increase in the number of professionals involved in the provision of care in the community in recent years. I anticipate that we shall also need an increase in the number of occupational therapists.

Yorkshire and Humberside Health Authority

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's cash allocation for Yorkshire and Humberside health authority for 1989–90.

Mr. Freeman: The Yorkshire regional health authority received an initial revenue cash allocation of £951·2 million in 1989–90. There has been a real terms increase in expenditure of about 31 per cent. for Yorkshire over the past 10 years.

Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is record expenditure, and that it represents spending of £280 per man, woman and child in Yorkshire and Humberside? Does he also agree that, based on last year's experience, that will probably provide treatment for more than 4,500,000 patients in that region alone? Does my hon. Friend agree that patients are a more accurate guide to the success of the NHS than the politically motivated comments of Opposition Members?

Mr. Freeman: Expenditure for the NHS as a whole is about twice the figure that my hon. Friend quoted. He has cited only the hospital service. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health expects to make a statement shortly on regional health authority allocations, which will show continued advance in real terms for the NHS in the regions.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Minister aware that seven district health authorities in the Yorkshire region confront a deficit which will have a serious effect on patient care?

Mr. Freeman: I am aware of the financial problems of certain districts in Yorkshire. It is the responsibility of health authorities to manage their affairs within the resources allocated to them. Under both Labour and Conservative Governments health authorities have been cash limited. It is their responsibility to manage. Our reforms, which bring the allocation of funds on a weighted capitation basis to districts, will provide a fairer and more automatic system of fund allocation.

BMA

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for health when he last met the representatives of the British Medical Association; and what was discussed.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association; and what was discussed.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I last met representatives of the British Medical Association on 18 October, when we had a friendly and constructive discussion about the implementation of our proposals in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

Mr. Griffiths: Is it not a shame that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not face up to the truth—that his proposals, which are causing the BMA and virtually every other medical organisation anxiety, are just a smokescreen for underfunding the service? He says that he is spending much more, but that means nothing to patients who are sent home with life-threatening diseases. In my constituency, a patient with cancer of the oesophagus was sent home three times because an intensive care bed was not available for him. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman provide more money for medical staff rather than for more administrators, which is what his scheme envisages?

Mr. Clarke: We are providing money for the NHS on an unprecedented scale. Neither the British Medical Association nor anyone else has put it to me recently that underfunding is the sole problem. We have just announced an increase for next year which is 5 per cent. ahead of inflation. That represents an increase in funding during the past two years of more than £5 billion.
My discussions with the BMA concentrate on ways in which we might spend that money more sensibly and carefully to get the best for patients, to cut waiting lists and to improve on facilities the lack of which, of course, are still encountered because of the way in which the NHS is run at the moment.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that, at a previous meeting with the BMA, he managed to get it to admit that it had misled the public about indicative drug budgets? In view of his great success at that meeting, will he arrange others in the hope that the BMA will withdraw other scare stories that it has put about?

Mr. Clarke: The claim that some people might not get the drugs they needed caused more alarm among patients than any other allegation made last summer. I share my hon. Friend's feelings about the fact that that allegation has been disposed of.
Meetings with the BMA are now much more friendly and constructive. Now that the House has given the National Health Service and Community Care Bill a Second Reading, I trust that everyone who shares our enthusiasm for the NHS will get down to sensible talks about how best to implement the reforms to get the best out of them.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Secretary of State agree that not one general practitioner practice in Wales which would qualify under his proposals has indicated any desire to have its own budget? Does he agree, therefore, that the central plank of his proposals are utterly irrelevant to Wales?

Mr. Clarke: It is not the central plank of the proposals, although it is an important one. I intend to give details of the programme for GP practice budgets tomorrow. That will be the first time we invite general practitioners seriously to decide whether they are interested in proceeding with it. I cannot believe that general practitioners in Wales will be more backward than their English colleagues in considering the advantages of the scheme. The more go-ahead practices which are anxious to develop services for their patients that the GP wishes to provide will be interested in the proposals I shall be putting forward.

Dame Jill Knight: Did not the BMA spend some £3 million of its own money on peddling what it has now admitted to be misinformation? In his talks with the BMA was my right hon. and learned Friend able to suggest that it should now spend a further sum on setting the record straight?

Mr. Clarke: Certainly the BMA spent a great deal of money—at least £3 million. It is now organising a fundraising campaign to replenish its war chest, but I do not think that it intends to go in for the same advertising again. That advertising campaign has virtually ceased. I think that that is because the BMA has decided to improve

the climate and get down to sensible and constructive discussions that we have been trying to encourage throughout

Mr. Robin Cook: In this new friendly atmosphere with the BMA, will the Secretary of State listen to the concern that it has expressed today about the 45 patients who have been transferred from the Freeman hospital in Newcastle to the Wythenshawe hospital in Manchester simply because it is cheaper? Is he aware that there is spare capacity at Wythenshawe only because it has run out of money to treat its own patients? How can he possibly justify shipping patients halfway across England to a hospital with an even longer waiting list? Does that not reveal the dangers of a Bill that puts the price of contracts before the patients' choice?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman refers to the unreformed National Health Service. The hon. Gentleman has discovered that quite a lot of patients move around the country, and sometimes have to travel considerable distances. They do so because patients and doctors are prepared to allow patients to travel to a better or quicker service. The Bill seeks to extend that opportunity to patients who are willing to travel for a better and cheaper service. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is talking about a nationally arranged service where the location of services is decided by the supra-national committee. If he is not, I shall look at the 45 cases, but I am quite sure that the consultants or doctors in charge of those patients decided to move them to somewhere where good quality service was quickly available. But it is quite wrong to seek to intervene in that politically.

Infertility

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities provide infertility investigations and treatment.

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities provide infertility investigations and treatment.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The investigation and treatment of infertility is part of the normal practice of gynaecology and is therefore available throughout the country.

Mrs. Mahon: Will not indicative drugs budgets and GP practice budgets deter GPs from sending women for infertility treatment and from taking on women who are already receiving expensive infertility treatment? Will that not add to a very human tragedy for many couples?

Mrs. Bottomley: The introduction of prescribing budgets is a sensible way of containing the costs of prescribing and ensuring that prescribing practices continue to develop. Dramatic advances have been made in infertility treatment. Many of the treatments are very costly and are available in increasing numbers of centres throughout the country. We see no reason to believe that it will not be possible for women to continue to benefit from those remarkable new initiatives.

Mr. John Marshall: When dealing with matters of fertility and infertility, will my hon. Friend remind consultants of the fertility of the imagination of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)?

Mrs. Bottomley: Yes, Sir.

Ms. Harman: Does not the Minister's earlier answer show that she is unaware that Lady Warnock described provision of fertility services within the National Health Service as "haphazard and unsatisfactory"? Is it not unacceptable that whether a childless couple can have the child that they long for depends on where they live and how much money they have? When will the Government act on the Warnock proposal, which does not need legislation, to improve fertility services throughout the National Health Service?

Mrs. Bottomley: Since the Labour party was in Government, there has been an increase from 661 to 746 in obstetrics and gynaecology consultants, who provide better and higher quality services. The local district health authority must decide the priorities of various services. The district health authority in the constituency of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) has chosen to have a new hospital costing £21 million and has increased day cases by 25 per cent. and in-patients by 10 per cent. It is clear that choices must be made in the Health Service, but there is much greater provision for infertility treatment of all kinds throughout the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Shrewsbury

Mr. Conway: To ask the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to Shrewsbury.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): At present, I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Conway: Although I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend cannot visit Shrewsbury, is she aware of the long connection between that town and the armed forces, particularly the light infantry depot that is based there and the military headquarters of the west midlands? Is she aware that the personal determination and compassion that she had to demonstrate in order that a statement on the uprating of war widows' pensions could be made was warmly welcomed in Shrewsbury? She is to be congratulated on that move in policy.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Hon. Members recognise the very special debt that we owe war widows. Their case is unique and distinctive, and I am glad that we have been able to offer them extra help, which hon. Members learned of yesterday.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Prime Minister think again about visiting Shrewsbury when she has had the opportunity of going to shire hall and hearing from county councillors across the political spectrum—from Church leaders, teachers, pupils and parents—about the overwhelming opposition to the establishment of a city technology college? If £8 million of public money is available for education, will she spend it not on the few but ensure that it is spent on buildings, equipment and books for the benefit of all the children in the town?

The Prime Minister: City technology colleges are a great new opportunity for young people from all backgrounds and ethnic groupings. Whenever they are opened, they prove very popular with teachers, pupils and parents alike.

Mr. Adley: Has my right hon. Friend visited the signal box outside Shrewsbury station? Is she aware that it is one of an enormous number of listed buildings that British Rail is expected to maintain as part of its normal operations? Does she agree that looking after listed buildings and running its own police force imposes an unfair burden on an industry that must compete on unfair terms with the road transport industry?

The Prime Minister: I confess that a visit to the signal box at Shrewsbury has not been at the top of the list of my heritage visits, but I look forward to that experience.

Engagements

Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 December 1989.

The Prime Minister: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one this morning at which I joined the task force of Westminster residents, which is designed to improve and protect the environment in Westminster. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. McFall: What does the Prime Minister have to offer the 48,000 people who are two months or more behind with their mortgage repayments and face a bleak Christmas as a result of the Government's incompetent economic management? Does she tell them to put their faith in her enterprise culture, or does she agree that an equally realistic approach is to post a letter to Santa?

The Prime Minister: The latest figures that we have about people behind with mortgage payments and in difficulties show that in the first half of this year—the latest full half-year—only one tenth of 1 per cent. of mortgage holders are in serious difficulty. That means that the overwhelming majority are enjoying the benefits of home ownership.

Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a great deal of help is given by the Government to overseas countries through the Overseas Development Administration joint funding arrangement. One of the countries that is not eligible for the assistance is Vietnam. In view of the tremendous need to help that country rebuild its economy to make a home for the boat people, is my right hon. Friend prepared to change that rule?

The Prime Minister: We are giving some help to Vietnam in connection with the return of some of the Vietnamese boat people. If we were to consider giving any more help, it should be done, in the first instance, through that scheme to help those returning to that country.

Mr. Kinnock: What excuse has the Prime Minister for giving instructions that in the middle of the night armed riot police should raid children, women and men, shove them in caged lorries and forcibly deport them to the country from which they have fled?

The Prime Minister: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that they were not armed police. May I also point out that at the international conference on Indo-Chinese refugees in Geneva in June, the international community agreed that refugees would be resettled in other countries and that those who did not


qualify as refugees would not be resettled and should return to Vietnam. Therefore, we returned some of those—as the right hon. Gentleman knows—to Vietnam. The people in Hong Kong could not go on taking any more. Many other countries nearby have pushed away the Vietnamese boat people but we have not. Those who are refugees—and there are 13,000 of them—will not be returned. However, it is perfectly in order to return illegal immigrants to their country of origin.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is trying to defend the indefensible. Does she realise that she is the only person in the whole shameful episode who cannot make the excuse, "I was only obeying orders"? She was the person giving the orders and the orders are tyrannical.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's remarks are feeble and nonsense. Illegal immigrants have to be returned to their country of origin. It is the custom of international law that such illegal immigrants are received back. The people of Hong Kong were suffering greatly from having some 57,000 Vietnamese boat people there, and more and more would come when the season came for them to leave Vietnam. It is perfectly in order to return them and those countries that are protesting at their return would do better if they offered to take some of them.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister telling us that she is prepared to see day after day and night after night the scenes that people have witnessed in those Hong Kong camps so that she can avoid her responsibility for looking after the welfare of people who are now being returned to poverty and oppression?

The Prime Minister: It is to help clear the camps where conditions are not good, where fighting sometimes breaks out and where there is disease. Those who are refugees will not be returned home. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we have to put back about 30,000 Chinese immigrants over the border each year. He cannot go on inflicting his anger on the people of Hong Kong and expect them to—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: It is perfectly in order to return illegal immigrants to their country of origin. There would be international chaos if they could travel anywhere and never be made to return.

Mr. Wells: Is it not true that the alternative to repatriation to Vietnam is the continuation for many years—something nine, 12 or 13 years—of families living in temporary and appalling prisoner of war camps in which the children of the Vietnamese families would have to grow up? Is it not more humane to let them return to their country and resume their lives?

The Prime Minister: Yes. It is much better and, as I said in reply to an earlier question, we are giving some money to the Vietnamese Government so that those people can be resettled in the villages from which they came. Our ambassador is monitoring what happens and sooner or later, we hope to be able to involve the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, although the refugees, as such, are not being returned to Vietnam.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister, in her busy day, take some time to reconsider the shameful example set by

her Government's actions last night in Hong Kong? Apart from the use of riot police at the dead of night and the blanket of secrecy, we must consider the appeal tribunals which condemned people to return to the hands of a Communist Government. Those people have no rights to attend the tribunals, no rights to legal representation, no rights to judicial review and no rights even to know why decisions have been taken against them. Does the Prime Minister think that that is a good example to set to the Chinese Government, to whom we shall hand over the safety of our citizens after 1997?

The Prime Minister: Each person who comes in is interviewed to see whether he is a genuine refugee. He has a right of appeal and the British Council report shows how excellent is the system that we operate. There are some 13,000 refugees. The countries that have shown anger about this matter have not yet even agreed to take any of the 13,000 for whom we still seek to find a home. It is impossible for the people of Hong Kong to take more and more of the Vietnamese boat people, many of whom are pushed away from other countries and it is impossible for them to continue to live in camps in what is already an overcrowded island. It is perfectly in order, as I said, through the Geneva conference to return those people to Vietnam and to give the Vietnamese Government some money to resettle them.

Tourism

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to appoint a Minister for United Kingdom tourism.

The Prime Minister: I am satisfied with the present arrangements. I know that my hon. Friend has long been a strong champion of tourism, which is one of Britain's fastest growing industryies. Last year alone it brought in over £6 billion from overseas tourists to this country. I congratulate my hon. Friend on being fortunate in representing a constituency that is, deservedly, one of Britain's leading tourist attractions.

Mr. Gregory: In view of the importance of tourism to the United Kingdom economy, as it is the fastest growth industry in Britain and brings in some £19 billion—although it is always derided by the Labour party as a candyfloss industry in a Mickey Mouse world—will my right hon. Friend confirm that responsibility for tourism is at present split between Ministries in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? As tourists from abroad look on us as Great Britain, will my right hon. Friend re-examine the possibility of appointing a Minister with overall responsibility for that important industry?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, those who live in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland prefer the responsibilities to be with the territorial Ministers, but I must point out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is the Minister who is responsible for tourism for Great Britain as a whole, as well as for England in particular. That arrangement best suits most people in these islands.

Dr. Godman: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the Scottish tourist industry and the Scottish tourist bodies will retain their autonomy, given the importance of the industry to many areas and islands of Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the responsibilities are set out in the Development of Tourism Act 1969 and we have no plans to change it.

Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the agreement in principle by Transport Ministers to liberalise European air transport will bring tremendous benefit to tourists and all consumers? Is not that the sort of measure with which the Community should be involving itself, rather than trying to impose on its members such contentious proposals as the social charter?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is quite right. It was very good news when last week the European Community agreed to deregulate air fares, which means that we shall get very much cheaper air fares to Europe. Hitherto, it has cost much more per mile to travel by air to Europe than to the United States. We have been working for several years to try to secure deregulation. In the past we had to do it by bilateral arrangement—it was Britain and the Netherlands that were keen on deregulation—but now the principle has been extended and will apply much more widely. That will help tourism and bring pleasure to many people who will now be able to fly more cheaply to European countries.

Ms. Short: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 12 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Short: Is the Prime Minister aware that most people in Britain think that our country is now too unequal and too divided? Does she know that the combined effect of all her tax and benefit changes is that the bottom 50 per cent. of families have lost £8·50 per week whereas the top 10 per cent. have gained nearly £40 per week? Will she now, as many families look forward to a bleak Christmas, promise to increase pensions and child benefit and introduce a national minimum wage so that everyone who lives in this country can share in its wealth?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with the hon. Lady's figures. She is well aware that people of all income groups—whether on social security benefits or earnings and those receiving treatment from the Health Service or in education—have benefited under this Government. All the benefits have gone up. In the last part of the hon. Lady's question she referred to increases for pensioners at Christmas. A Labour Government cancelled the Christmas bonus for two years in succession. Under Conservative Governments pensioners continue to receive their Christmas bonus.

European Council (Strasbourg)

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Council in Strasbourg on 8 and 9 December which I attended together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The text of the Council's conclusions has been placed in the Library of the House.
The Council considered four main issues: the steps still needed to complete the common market in 1992; progress with economic and monetary union; the social charter; and how the European Community can support democracy and economic reform in eastern Europe.
First, on the steps needed to achieve a real common market by 1992, our meeting in Strasbourg confirmed the importance that we all attach to keeping to the timetable for 1992, and I believe that we are on course for that. The Council confirmed and welcomed the progress made during the past six months—in particular to open up markets for banking and financial services and for telecommunications in every member state, and to make possible cheaper air fares. We shall aim to agree another package of important measures before the end of the year, including rules for company mergers and the further opening up of public sector procurement.
We also set priorities for the next stage of our work, covering such matters as freedom to provide investment services and life insurance throughout the Community, and removal of restrictions on road and air transport and shipping.
Completion of the common market is important in three respects. First, it represents the single most important contribution that the European Community can make to the prosperity of all its members. Secondly, it is an example and an opportunity for the countries of eastern Europe. Thirdly, it is the main respect in which the European Community is in practice moving towards closer integration. Britain has been at the forefront throughout, and our record of implementing the Community's decisions is matched only by that of Denmark, as was explicitly confirmed by Mr. Delors in Strasbourg.
The second main item was progress with economic and monetary union. The Council welcomed the fact that the necessary decisions have now been taken to enable the first stage of closer economic and monetary co-operation in Europe to start on 1 July next year. That is something which Britain very strongly supports.
President Mitterrand also noted that the necessary majority existed to convene an intergovernmental conference before the end of next year to discuss further steps towards economic and monetary union. The conference will set its own agenda and the timetable for its proceedings. No time limit is set for its work. It will have before it not just the Delors report, but the British paper setting out an evolutionary approach to economic and monetary union, and perhaps other contributions. Meanwhile, discussion of all these matters will continue among Finance Ministers to ensure that there is full and adequate preparation of the intergovernmental conference.
The council's conclusions specifically recognise—this is a very important point for Britain and for the House—that the procedures for democratic control over economic and financial matters in each member state must be respected.
We are in the early stage of what will be a long debate in Europe on these matters. A number of different viewpoints are already beginning to emerge. Britain will play a full and constructive part in the debate, while reflecting the view expressed in all parts of this House that stages 2 and 3 of the Delors proposals are not acceptable.
Our third main item was the social charter. At our last meeting in Madrid, we all agreed that creating jobs should be the Community's top priority. It was all the more disappointing that the social charter which emerged would regulate the labour market in a way which, far from creating jobs, would actually put them at risk, by raising costs and making our countries less competitive.
Moreover, the charter foreshadows an action programme which the Commission is bringing forward containing no fewer than 43 separate proposals, including 17 legally binding directives. Action at Community level is appropriate in matters such as health and safety at work and freedom of movement. But the programme includes many other matters such as part-time work, working conditions, and compulsory schemes of worker participation in management.
Britain does not accept that the Community should direct policy in these matters, many of which we believe are for national authorities to decide. Nor do we see any need to seek uniformity among social policies which have been developed to suit the varied needs and traditions of the different Community countries.
I therefore made it clear that we would not endorse the text of the charter, and, judging from their comments, I believe that many of my colleagues in Europe will have considerable difficulties with the Commission's specific proposals when they come forward.
The fourth main item of our work was help to eastern Europe. We want to support in practical ways the countries in eastern Europe which are introducing democracy and economic reform. The Council therefore committed us to further specific measures of help, including more food supplies; support for the $1 billion stabilisation plan for Poland; setting up an agency to help co-ordinate offers of training; and agreement in principle to set up a development bank to help eastern European countries to make the transition to market-based economies, and we hope that others, including the United States, Japan, Canada and the European Free Trade Association countries, will join in the European development bank.
Britain's ideas for closer association between the European Community and the countries of eastern Europe will also be followed up.
Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers also discussed a wide range of international political issues. We underlined the importance of maintaining security and stability in Europe, in the face of the momentous changes taking place. This means confirming existing alliances, treaties and agreements, including the Helsinki Final Act.
I would also draw attention to our declaration on southern Africa. In this the Twelve look forward to the time when sanctions and other measures against South Africa can be reconsidered in response to profound and irreversible change there.
May I say how grateful the Government are for President Mitterrand's skilful, courteous and effective chairmanship of the Council? It was an important meeting. What emerged most strongly is the degree to which the Community and the 12 member states—not least because of 1992—can act as the driving force in the development of the whole of Europe, at a turning point in the continent's history. The Community should be an example of how free and democratic nations can work ever more closely together, while remaining open to the outside world.
That is the way in which Britain wants the Community to develop, and, despite disagreements on some points, the Strasbourg Council encourages us to believe that that is how the Community will develop, with Britain playing a very full part.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Prime Minister for her statement. Opposition Members welcome a number of the decisions that were made in Strasbourg, especially on the social charter and the development bank, to assist the achievement of prosperity and the advance of democracy in eastern Europe. We consider that the summit was wise to adopt the communiqué that accepts the right of the German people
to regain its unity through free self-determination
in a peaceful and democratic process that fully respects existing agreements, treaties and the principles of the Helsinki Final Act. We further believe that the communiqué is a rational and constructive response to the widespread acknowledgement in both parts of Germany that the German question is a matter not only for the German people, but for their neighbours in the West and East also.
Is the Prime Minister aware that those positive decisions in Strasbourg were mainly taken in spite of her, not because of her?
On the social charter, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to specify precisely why she will try to deny the British people safeguards and support on matters such as part-time work, working conditions and opportunities for workers to participate in the management decisions that greatly affect their lives? What success has she had in convincing her fellow Conservatives such as Chancellor Kohl and Prime Ministers Martens, Da Silva, Andreotti and Schlüter of her belief that the social charter, which they accept in its entirety, is somehow "Marxist"?
On economic and monetary union, will the Prime Minister tell us precisely what her policy now is towards participation in the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system? Does Britain's participation depend upon that ever lengthening list of conditions that the right hon. Lady has enumerated over recent months: the completion of the single market, the removal of all exchange controls, the removal of all industrial subsidies and the reduction of British inflation to the European average, or, following her Financial Times interview this morning, do those conditions now have to be only "broadly met" in her new "open mind", or is she simply waiting until her next interview to decide what she really thinks? Instead of waiting upon events, why does she not improve on the present conditions and embark upon negotiations on conditions to try to secure participation in the exchange rate mechanism with maximum advantage and minimum difficulty for our country?
As the Prime Minister reflects on the Strasbourg summit and looks forward to summits in Ireland and Italy

over the next 12 months, will she be changing her failed policies? Does she not understand that, whatever scepticism or hostility hon. Members of all parties may share towards stage 2 and 3 of the Delors process, the least effective way of influencing vital discussions and negotiations is through her habit of declaring strident opposition and following that up with resentful acquiescence? Does she not realise that that unconvincing and unsuccessful posturing has brought her to a position in the Community where she is merely tolerated and then bypassed, smiled at by other leaders but then sidelined by the processes?
Is it not clear that Strasbourg was a place of repeated defeat for the British Prime Minister? She was defeated on the intergovernmental conference, on the social charter and on the establishment of a European development bank. When will the Prime Minister ever learn that if this country is to have its proper influence in the Community, it must have its proper involvement in the Community?

The Prime Minister: I hope that everyone who is listening will remember that the right hon. Gentleman was not there and does not really know much about it.
As for the most important issue on which advances were made—the single market, something which makes everyone else in the world realise that Europe really is integrating into one market—Britain is in the lead— [Interruption] Yes indeed, Britain has implemented more of the directives, has led on many of the directives and of course was the first to make the single market a high priority.
The right hon. Gentleman says that there are times when one stands up very much for things that are good for Britain. We did that, and because of it we have now had returned to Britain about £10 billion from the reform of the budget, a sum which the right hon. Gentleman would have had neither the skill nor the resolve to secure for this country.
Next, we took a prominent part in securing the reform of the common agricultural policy, and for that most people are now profoundly thankful.
The social charter was adopted only as a general statement by the 11 countries. When the Commission put forward a proposal that we all agree to give effect to the directives, that proposal was thrown out by almost every country because many who agreed with the charter agreed with it only as a general declaration. They will now have to look in detail at each of the directives as they come forward.
Many who were prepared to put their names to a general declaration about a minimum wage will not agree to it when it comes forward because it would mean knocking many of their economies into a state of much higher unemployment. So it is far better to insist that these issues come forward as separate directives, when each and every one of them can be considered separately, rather than agree them in a broad general charter.
At the intergovernmental conference, our paper on the future of economic and monetary union will be among those which will be properly considered. It is an excellent paper. The governor of the Swiss National bank pointed out:
The British authorities have understood the essential point: monetary integration should proceed along the path from stability to unity, and not that from unity to stability.
Karl Otto Pöhl, governor of the Bundesbank, pointed out that our evolutionary approach paper was


a realistic and sensible description of what monetary policy should concentrate on in future years.
So the people who know are most complimentary about the British stance.

Mr. David Howell: Turning from the dreary liturgy of the Leader of the Opposition to the coming debate about the future integration of the European Community, which my right hon. Friend mentioned and in which we shall be playing a full part, is it not a fact that, even if today the European Community was one federated super state, it would be necessary to reinvent nation states in order for Europe to meet its needs in the 1990s?
Is not the vision which we need to seek that of a confederation of free and open kingdoms and republics throughout Europe? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the need for the future? Bearing that in mind, does that not utterly refute the criticism which people make of my right hon. Friend's proper concern for the role of nation states in the Europe of the future?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that we shall get maximum co-operation and maximum effect when we have the 12 nation states co-operating with one another ever more closely together, each with their pride in their own history and their own culture and each being prepared to do together the things that we do better together and which makes us stronger to do them together, leaving the others of us to do other things separately in our own way.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: May I take the Prime Minister back to the Milan conference of 1985? Is it not the case that there, too, she voted against an intergovernmental conference, on that occasion on the Single European Act, which she has subsequently been forced to accept and of which, I sometimes think, she has even claimed authorship?
Is it not a fact that at this conference she went opposed to the social contract and was outvoted 11 to one? She went opposed to an intergovernmental conference and was outvoted 11 to one. She was opposed to a European development bank but had to accept it. If that is batting for Britain, she is doing a remarkably bad job. The remarkable thing about the conference was that our European allies did not find her irritating only because they found her completely irrelevant. The Government and the Labour party must realise that the nation's best long-term interests cannot be fulfilled without an increasingly integrated Europe which comes together politically, economically and socially.

The Prime Minister: The country's best long-term interests consist of keeping those who are in opposition there in perpetuity.
At the intergovernmental conference which preceded the Single European Act, it was not necessary to have a treaty amendment to achieve the single market; it could have been achieved without that. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, the Single European Act ensured that certain matters could be decided by majority vote for a limited purpose, whereas previously they were taken by unanimous vote. That change is not necessary to complete the single European market.
Many of my collegues were prepared to agree to the social charter as a general declaration without any effect whatever. I was not prepared to put my name to a general declaration without being prepared to consider what flowed from it, much of which I wish to and shall oppose. The charter should not have been brought forward. It was outside some of the articles in the treaty of Rome and could have been used to gain extra competence for the European Commission. The position now is far better. Separate directives will have to be brought forward, each of which we shall consider in the usual way.
On the European development bank, both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) have got it wrong. The European development bank was agreed in principle in Paris, and it was announced then.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the opportunities arising in eastern Europe, through know-how funds, for both political and industrial exchanges? What further steps may be taken by our partners in Europe along those lines? Will she keep an open mind on extending the list beyond Poland and Hungary, to take in, for example, East Germany? Many of us believe that the position in Germany is not only a problem for West Germany.

The Prime Minister: Many EEC countries now have know-how funds to train people in Poland and Hungary who do not know what a market economy is like. We are giving training on how to achieve it. We have co-ordinated with one another through the mechanisms that I mentioned so that we do not overlap too far.
The general view on East Germany and Czechoslovakia is that when they have set up arrangements for true democracy and implemented an IMF agreement, if required, further aid will flow. We use much the same system and techniques as we used in Poland, although Poland was a special case. She needed a good deal of food right away and some management training. We saw to it that she received both. Other countries whose needs are not so urgent will need to set up a democratic structure, and we shall consider their financial position before we agree further aid.

Mr. Frank Cook: When discussing aspects of stability and security in the Community, did the Prime Minister refer to reports in the American publication, Defence Daily, which stated that President Bush had given his presidential approval to an Anglo-French co-production of a 400 km tactical air-to-surface missile, to be developed by British Aerospace and Thomson-CSF? Did she explain to her fellow heads of state why presidential approval was necessary for such an Anglo-French initiative? Why is it necessary now that the INF agreement has been made?

The Prime Minister: This was not a NATO meeting, but a European Community meeting. The EEC, or European Community, is not a defence organisation, as the hon. Gentleman knows. NATO is a defence organisation.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her part in the positive tone of the Strasbourg conference. Will she build on that by ensuring that all our Community partners understand that we have a commitment to economic and monetary union, as they do, but that we prefer the evolutionary approach which will


better safeguard the interests of national Parliaments and ensure that the eventual economic and monetary union is more stable? Will she also welcome today's announcement that the French will abolish the remnants of their exchange controls from 1 January? Is that not significant progress in achieving the conditions for the entry of sterling into the exchange rate mechanism which were laid down at Madrid?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the evolutionary approach is much better and more effective when considering how to move towards economic and monetary union. That approach has been praised by several central bank governors and it will eventually find more favour. It is steadier and more sure than the other approach. The whole time it maintains national democratic accountability, and we are not the only nation that wants that accountability to remain.
France has undertaken to abolish her exchange controls by 1 July, but I believe that she will bring the date forward. Italy will wait until July to abolish hers. That will give her more problems, but I hope that she will be able to abolish them successfully. Spain and other nations will abolish exchange controls in 1992. One expects them to take longer because they joined later. We have agreed that we shall join the exchange rate mechanism when the conditions are fulfilled. Those conditions were set out at Madrid and have not changed since. No one is suggesting that we should dot every "i" and cross every "t" before we consider when the time is right to join.

Mr. Peter Shore: The House will welcome what the Strasbourg communiqué had to say about the various measures of aid for eastern Europe—clearly greatly needed. The House will also welcome what the Prime Minister said about stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report remaining unacceptable to the Government and all parts of this House. Unfortunately, however, the intergovernmental conference is to meet before the end of 1990 with the purpose of drawing up amendments to the treaty to introduce stages 2 and 3 of Delors. The implications of those decisions for Britain's economic independence and for the powers of this Parliament are enormous.
Would it not be right for the Prime Minister now to consider setting up a Select Committee of this House to examine the full political, constitutional and economic implications of stages 2 and 3 so that when the decision comes to be taken it can be taken in the full knowledge of the implications for this country and its Parliament and not in ignorance?

The Prime Minister: I shall be only too delighted to receive as much technical advice as possible on stages 2 and 3 of Delors. The intergovernmental conference has been delayed until the end of next year, so that there can be full and adequate preparation before we go into the conference. I would have preferred it not to have been set up so quickly because we shall have started stage 1 of Delors only in July 1990 and it will not be completed until well into 1993. It will be the biggest change that the Community has had and we shall not know the magnitude of that change. It would have been much better to have been aware of that before an intergovernmental conference to consider treaty changes was set up. Others wanted to consider that earlier, so we have tried to give time for preparation to see what the options will be.
Stages 2 and 3 will not be considered alone; our paper will also be considered. It is obvious from the discussions that we had in Strasbourg that more and more people are becoming worried about democratic accountability. They would not find accountability to the European Parliament sufficient. There must be democratic accountability to national Parliaments. Select Committees are not a matter for me, but we shall make as many studies as we can of the full consequences of stages 2 and 3 of the Delors report.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's new style of Talleyrand softness and subtlety in her approach to the EEC, may I ask her to use it to explain an apparent inconsistency between two apparently incompatible parts of the Strasbourg communiqué? The whole House will welcome paragraph 3(3) which she read out and which appears to suggest that the national Parliaments of member states will have a key slice of democratic control of decisions over economic and monetary union. However, the next paragraph of the communiqué, although written in confusing Eurospeak, appears to suggest that the European Parliament will also get democratic control and more powers over the EMU process. If there is a clash between these Parliaments, will my right hon. Friend say clearly whose side she is on?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend hardly needs to inquire. As he knows, under the present system decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers, with Ministers from each of the 12 countries in the relevant council. Each Minister is fully and democratically accountable to his own Parliament, as I am accountable now. Perhaps the other Ministers do not have such a positive or detailed reporting system as we have. Therefore, they do not fully realise now central economic, monetary and budgetary control is to the life of our Parliament. We stand very much for national democratic accountability. That is much more detailed and much more effective than any accountability through the European Parliament.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Following the European summit, will the Prime Minister tell us whether the change in emphasis in her position on the exchange rate mechanism, which was detected by the Financial Times and other newspapers, is correct? Will she tell the House the exact nature of this U-turn and whether it might pave the way for the return of her former Chancellor to high office in her Administration?

The Prime Minister: Our position about joining the exchange rate mechanism has not changed in spite of what the hon. Gentleman says. It was laid down at Madrid in more detail than hitherto and there has been no change since then. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the free movement of people, goods and services and investment from East to West and from West to East will do more good for the people of Europe and their prosperity than any talk of political union in western Europe?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The aim of a single market by 1992 is the outward and visible sign of closer integration of the European Community. That has made many other countries realise that the nations of Europe are drawing closer together for economic purposes. That will be a considerable force in the world and should give much


greater opportunities for employment in this country and for prosperity in general. It will be very good for all our peoples.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: During the meeting, did the Prime Minister notify colleagues that there was likely to be meeting of the four powers to discuss developments in East and West Berlin? If so, could she tell us why she thinks that an occupying organisation set up in 1945 is the appropriate vehicle for dealing with the issues of East and West Germany and East and West Berlin? Is it not anachronistic and insulting to pretend that we can promote and foster certain notions while excluding East and West Germans themselves?

The Prime Minister: No. Berlin is under four-power administration and it seems appropriate that the ambassadors of the four powers should meet at this time. We have forces there, and there were obviously many things to consider.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite a fickle and volatile British press, she was able to contribute fully to the harmony, cohesion and unity of the Strasbourg summit, thereby underlining once again that the Conservative party and Conservative Government constitute the only true European force of progress in this country?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Jacques Delors has always affirmed that, although he was asked to produce a detailed blueprint with his committee, all stages are negotiable, and that that depends on the continuing unity and harmony of the member states?
Finally, may I ask whether the Community trade mark office was discussed? I gather that there is still a chance that Britain will receive that institution, and also that the location may be reconsidered and will not necessarily be in central London.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, a number of matters involving European headquarters must be considered. We did not discuss where those headquarters should be; that might have been a rather difficult discussion, as each of us knows precisely what we want.
The Delors report was not worked out very well in stages 2 and 3. It was very sketchy. I believe that when it has been worked out more carefully many more people will recoil from it.

Ms. Joyce Quin: The Prime Minister's opposition to the social charter is apparently based on the claim that it would undermine industry's competitiveness. How, then, does she explain the fact that in West Germany, where its provisions are largely in force and where wages are higher than they are in Britain, industry—particularly manufacturing industry—is able to compete so successfully?

The Prime Minister: A good deal of the social charter was intended to impose some of Germany's very high costs on other countries that could not possibly afford them. Germany says that for inward investment to go to other lower-cost countries is a form of social dumping, but we do not accept that at all, and we consider it a pretty non-communautaire phrase.
Accepting the social charter would mean accepting the imposition of many higher costs on countries that could not afford them. We do not have minimum wages in this country; we have the different and more effective concept of minimum incomes, which we find suits industry, our costs and our competitiveness better.

Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. Friend realise how welcome was Mr. Delors' statement that Great Britain and Denmark are making the most progress towards enacting the 1992 legislation into their domestic law? Is she aware that many people in this country are worried that equally fast progress is not being made in the other Community countries, and will she ensure that the British Government make every possible representation to all those countries to ensure that they keep up with the pace set by this country and Denmark?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have always tried to implement the directives as fast as possible, and so has Denmark; and the Netherlands are not far behind. I take my hon. Friend's point: we shall point out that the directives are there to be implemented, and that until they are implemented there will, in effect, be no single market.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the subsequent business. We have an important statement after this, and then an important debate. I will allow three more questions from each side, and then we must move on.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Prime Minister help the House by trying to clarify the position on stability and security, which, apparently, she, Mr. Gorbachev and the Community all want? How does she react to what is happening in the countries of eastern Europe—Hungary, Czechoslovakia and East Germany, to say nothing of Lithuania and Estonia—which are producing all the instability?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, considerable change is taking place in eastern Europe, and it is better to accommodate change—when it is change from Communism to a democratic system—by maintaining NATO and the Warsaw pact in position. That is the way in which we negotiate the reduction of conventional weapons—and we are at present negotiating with START, the strategic arms reduction talks, and with talks on reducing chemical weapons—and the way in which we adhere to the Helsinki Final Act.
That agreement, signed by 34 countries, contains two provisions concerning borders. The first is that no party must violate another's borders; the second is that any change in borders must be made by peaceful agreement. Those are the two frameworks in which we shall keep stability and security.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her cautionary words, both today in the House and at the Strasbourg summit, about the delicacy of the evolving German problem will be warmly welcomed and that it is very likely that, in the fullness of time, her view that we should adopt an evolutionary approach within the existing framework of security arrangements will prove to be far more correct


and far more safe for the Community and the world than the view of those who seek to go headlong into it on a wave of popular euphoria?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The German question raises many emotions. It is far better to deal with it in the way that we suggest at Strasbourg and in NATO;— against the background of existing alliances and agreements that we have all signed.

Mr. Bernie Grant: As for the European development bank and the moneys that will flow into eastern Europe, can the Prime Minister guarantee that no money will he taken away from black and Third world countries and given to eastern Europe?

The Prime Minister: We have just signed a new Lomé agreement.

Mr. Grant: That was not the question.

The Prime Minister: A number of people made the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. It is not our purpose to take away from countries the help that they receive through bilateral aid programmes, the World Bank and Lomé. The majority holding in the European development bank will be by European Community countries, with other countries providing facilities so that there are sufficient funds to help eastern Europe—but not at the expense of others.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend accept that her robust but judicious contribution at Strasbourg is very welcome on this side of the House, particularly the fact that she has demonstrated once again that the British Government are more interested in Euro-do than Euro-speak?
As for the contentious matter of the European monetary system, did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to point out to other Council members that, whatever decisions might be taken in future about sterling, it would not be practicable for the pound to enter the exchange rate mechanism until inflation and interest rates are substantially lower than they are now?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend makes his points very well indeed. I agree with him that we have to get inflation down before we can enter the exchange rate mechanism. That was one of the conditions that we laid down. I agree very much with my right hon. Friend that when it comes to getting things done we tend to lead. We have done less of the talking and more of the acting than others.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Prime Minister properly emphasised the importance of information when she replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). Is she able to say which extant Government document best sets out the implications of economic and monetary union for the United Kingdom? As for democratic accountability, can she tell us when the House approved a resolution, the words of which specifically approved the principle that this country should adhere to economic and monetary union?

The Prime Minister: Progressive realisation of economic and monetary union was agreed by the Community in 1972 and therefore was accepted by us when we acceded to the Community in 1973.

Sir Ian Lloyd: If the Prime Minister accepts Grotius's classic definition of sovereignty as being that area of the national world that cannot be obstructed by others, are there not an increasing number of areas—telecommunications, the environment, medical matters and many others—in which the national will cannot be fully exercised? Does that not lie at the heart of the many important papers that have been published by the European Parliament, dealing with what is described as a democratic deficit? Does the Prime Minister believe that that deficit can best be addressed by bringing back sovereignty to national Parliaments that cannot exercise it, or taking it forward to the European Parliament which, if it is not in a position to exercise it, must surely within a reasonable time be brought precisely to such a position?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that when one enters into international treaties one voluntarily gives up a certain part of one's sovereignty because one is perhaps pooling it with others. That is the way that it has to be done in a multinational world. There has to be some pooling of sovereignty and standards over the environment and telecommunications. It is a far cry from doing that to pooling many other things that are best dealt with locally and in national Parliaments. We need to get the balance right.
We have excellent democratic accountability in this House. I sometimes think that other Prime Ministers would profit from having a similar system. I do not think that it will be possible to achieve the intimacy and detailed debate that we get in this House in the European Parliament because of the many languages involved, and because of its layout. Therefore, we shall not get sufficient democratic accountability there.

Vietnamese Boat People

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the repatriation of Vietnamese boat people from Hong Kong.
This morning, Hong Kong time, a group of 51 boat people were returned to Vietnam by aircraft from Hong Kong. All 51 had been screened under a thorough process agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and they did not qualify for refugee status under the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees and the 1967 protocol. The repatriation was conducted in line with procedures used worldwide to remove people refused permission to remain in a territory. No firearms were carried. No force was used.
At the international conference on Indo-Chinese refugees in Geneva in June, the international community agreed that refugees would be resettled in other countries, and that those who did not qualify as refugees would not be resettled and should return to Vietnam. I stress that the criteria for establishing who qualifies as a refugee are not decided by Britain, or by the Hong Kong authorities alone, but by agreement with the UNHCR.
We, and the UNHCR, have tried, as the House knows, to encourage the boat people to return to Vietnam voluntarily. In the past year more than 600 have done so, but, during the same period, more than 30,000 have arrived in Hong Kong. In all there are nearly 57,000 boat people in Hong Kong, most of whom are not likely to qualify as refugees. The Vietnamese have recently agreed to accept volunteers back at a faster rate, but it is clear that voluntary returns alone will not match the scale of the problem. The majority of volunteers so far have come from the people not yet screened; of those already screened and found not to qualify as refugees, fewer than 1 per cent. are volunteering to return.
We have therefore had to begin repatriating those who are not refugees and who do not volunteer. The international community have said that they will not resettle those people. If they were not returned to Vietnam, they would therefore face the prospect of indefinite detention in camps in Hong Kong. There is another matter of great importance—unless it is made clear to people in Vietnam that those who do not qualify as refugees will be returned to Vietnam, Hong Kong faces the prospect of tens of thousands more arrivals in 1990. That is simply not an acceptable prospect.
The arrangements for repatriation have, like those for voluntary returns, been agreed in negotiation with the Vietnamese Government. Vietnam has told us that those who are repatriated will not be punished for leaving. We have given aid to be used to help those being repatriated to settle back into Vietnam.
As the House would expect I have paid attention to monitoring to ensure that those who return are in no way ill treated. Our embassy in Hanoi will be monitoring their conditions both in the transit camp in Hanoi to which they immediately return, and in the villages to which they are returned, as it has been doing for volunteers.
We hope that the UNHCR will agree to help, as he now helps people returning to Laos from Thailand. We would welcome the co-operation of non-governmental organisations.
In the meantime, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, who have agreed to go to Vietnam next month as independent observers to report to me on the conditions of those who were repatriated earlier today.
There are still about 40,000 Vietnamese in the camps in Hong Kong who are not qualified as refugees. As I have already mentioned, there is a serious risk of as many thousands arriving next year. That is a serious situation. We shall now be discussing with the Vietnamese Government how to ensure in future the swift and safe return of those who are not refugees. We will talk about ways in which we can help Vietnam to take people back at a faster rate—both volunteers and those who are repatriated. We will discuss how we can help those who return to be reintegrated into Vietnam. We shall talk, as we have to, about ways to screen new arrivals quickly as they reach Hong Kong so that those who are not refugees can be returned quickly and safely to Vietnam. Those who are refugees will, as at present, be allowed to await resettlement in the West. We shall work hard to find way to check the inflow of Vietnamese into Hong Kong next year, and seek international co-operation on this at the next meeting of the Geneva conference steering committee in January.
I know that there is intense interest in the House in this issue. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President intends to announce that there will be a day for debates on the Estimates on Tuesday 19 December. This will include a half-day debate on class II, vote 2, so far as it relates to the accommodation and repatriation of Vietnamese boat people. No further repatriations will take place before that debate.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Foreign Secretary said that the action took place this morning. He did not say that it was at 3 am.

Mr. Terry Dicks: So what!

Mr. Kaufman: It is clear that the hon. Member likes the idea of the 3 o'clock knock by the police. The Government have adopted the policy of the 3 o'clock knock by the police.
Why was the operation carried out under cover of darkness and under the veil of a news blackout? If, as the Foreign Secretary says, force was ruled out, why were 150 riot police, equipped with riot helmets, shields and batons, needed to remove 51 people of whom 43 were children and women? Are those really the procedures that are used worldwide to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred?
Who was responsible for organising and executing this operation? How many among those persons are now claiming that they need the right of abode in the United Kingdom to protect their human rights? If the Government are so satisfied with what they are doing, why did they not invite Amnesty International, the United Nations Commission for Human Rights or some other internationally recognised organisation to be present when the asylum seekers were removed?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to screening procedures. Why is there no independent process of appeal for screening procedures? Why are appellants not allowed to put their case personally? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such shortcomings do not accord with the concept of the rule of law? If the Government object to free


movement from Communist countries by what they call economic migrants, why were they a signatory to the Helsinki Final Act which embodied such principles in Europe? Why did the Government applaud the movement of such migrants from East to West Germany before the opening of the Berlin wall? What is the basis of the Government's discrimination between migrants from different Communist countries in different continents?
The right hon. Gentleman says that the Vietnamese Government have given assurances about the treatment of returning asylum seekers, but he is unconvincing about how he will reliably monitor such assurances. He says that the embassy in Hanoi will do the job, but he knows that the embassy in Hanoi is not equipped for that as it has only one Vietnamese speaker. How will it be carried out? In any case, if the right hon. Gentleman regards assurances by the Vietnamese Government as being so reliable, why does he deny such an admirable and trustworthy Government economic aid? Vietnam is one of only two countries to which the United Kingdom Government deny all bilateral economic development aid.
The right hon. Gentleman just said that he has had to adopt this solution, but the Government have always been determined on it. The Leader of the House, the former Foreign Secretary, said last night:
what is now happening was first foreshadowed in a statesment that I made in Hong Kong some 15 months ago. The policy has been repeatedly explained to the House".— [Official Report, 11 December 1989; Vol. 163 c. 782.]
The Government planned, decided upon and wanted that policy, and no rational person could accept the pretence that it has been forced upon them. Far from having no choice the Government have deliberately made the choice of bundling women and children into closed cars under the supervision of riot police, and taking them to an airport in the dead of night and under a news blackout.
The Prime Minister said a little while ago that she would impose conditions on whether to attend the forthcoming conference on human rights in Moscow. Bellowing Conservative Members do not care about human rights except when they are attacking certain Communist countries in Europe. The Prime Minister has shown herself to be completely unfit not only to attend any conference on human rights anywhere but even to utter those words.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) began with the operation itself. The policy which it embodies, as he said later in his intervention, has been announced and argued through repeatedly in the House. There can be no possible surprise among any right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that it is being implemented, but we thought it right to carry it through in a way which reduced the risk of violence and force, and that was done.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about screening. Each applicant for asylum who claims to be a refugee is screened at a two-hour interview and has the right of appeal. That process is monitored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to read the report of the British Refugee Council, particularly what it says about screening. In case he doubts the validity of that report, it is signed by two of his most distinguished former colleagues who are respected in the House—Lord Ennals and Mr. Alf Dubs.
The right hon. Gentleman pretended that there was some discrimination. There is no discrimination. The

crucial test tests who is a refugee. We apply the same test in the United Kingdom, as I know from my last job. The same test is being applied in Hong Kong. It is a test laid down not by us but by the United Nations in the 1951 convention. The test is whether an individual has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. That is the United Nations test. We apply it in Britain and it is being applied in Hong Kong.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to assurances. So far as we and the United Nations can tell, the assurances given by the Vietnamese Government in respect of those who volunteered to go back, have been fully respected. But of course monitoring is important. I agree that it has to start with the embassy, and I am very keen to reinforce it as soon as possible. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to Lord Ennals for conducting that reinforcement. I hope that the new UNHCR and our own non-governmental organisations will join in that monitoring. It does not require them to approve the policy; it simply asks them to monitor whether the undertakings given are being fully respected.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about aid. We are giving some aid to Vietnam to help the people whom we are repatriating or who are volunteering to resettle in their communities. We are prepared to consider further aid, including perhaps through NGOs, but that will have to be negotiated as part of wider arrangements to repatriate boat people.
I listened when the right hon. Gentleman was asked this morning what his policy was. He announced a three-point plan. The first thing that a Labour Government would do is conduct proper screening, but there is proper screening, which I have just described and which is monitored by the UN and endorsed by his right hon. Friends. The second point in his great plan was that refugees would be settled in the West. They are being settled in the West, which is one of the main purposes of the international agreement that was reached last year and in which we are playing our part. Having announced the third part of his three point plan, he forgot what it was, and when he was pressed on what would be done for people who had been screened-out as refugees, he found no answer. He has shown, by his diffidence in putting forward alternatives, some understanding of the realities, but when pressed he has always dodged them—we cannot do so.

Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on having taken a courageous and correct decision on this very difficult problem? He will be aware that the population of Hong Kong is roughly one tenth of the population of the United Kingdom. If 400,000 boat people had landed illegally on the shores of this country as economic migrants from, say Romania, does he think that the Opposition might be singing a different tune?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend described the decision as courageous and correct, which is for the House to judge, but, as he will agree, it is an unwelcome one. I considered this, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President before him, in the hope of finding an easier way, but we were forced back—the right hon. Member for Gorton failed to realise this—on the


realities to which my right hon. Friend referred. We come back to the essential distinction, which will become more and more important in the world as we proceed, between people who, quite understandably, want to move somewhere else to achieve a more agreeable life and those who are forced to do so by the well-founded fear of persecution. Those who blur that distinction do not understand its crucial importance to the successful handling of a series of intractable problems, of which at the moment this is the worst.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Secretary of State accept that the feelings of the people in this, country about what happened last night vary from unease to repugnance that a British Government should stoop to use a device that, under successive Governments, we have consistently condemned in others—the knock on the door in the middle of the night? His statement was evasive on that issue; he has not responded to questions on the point, but will he do so now? Will he explain why the Government rejected the proposal to use the empty Hong Kong island of Tai Au Chau as a more adequate resettlement facility pending international agreement or improvement of conditions in Vietnam? Will he be more forthcoming about exactly what aid he is offering to help to resettle these people?

Mr. Hurd: We are talking about the repatriation—many countries, including Britain and certainly the United States, do it—of people who are not refugees and who have no right of entry or settlement. In the circumstances of Hong Kong, it was clearly right to do that in a way that did not involve, or which reduced to the minimum, the risk of violence and force, which is what occurred. Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that we should ask the people of Hong Kong to accept refugees on one of their islands, which has no facilities or services and is wholly unsuitable for the purposes that he described? If he, or the leader of his party, who has just returned from Hong Kong, are seriously suggesting that we should put that proposition to the people of Hong Kong who have endured a great deal precisely because they have been more open and responsive to the real problem than neighbouring countries, it shows how completely out of touch they are with reality.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are many cases in the world where illegal immigrants who are not refugees and seek a better economic prospect are returned whence they came? For instance, large numbers of Mexicans are returned by the United States. Is it not true that Hong Kong last year returned over 50 illegal immigrants a day to China? Has my right hon. Friend heard any fuss from the Opposition about those situations? As I cannot remember any fuss, will he take little notice of what they say now, especially as they have no practicable alternative policy to offer us?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He mentions a valid point which perhaps I should have included. For many years, Hong Kong under different Governments—including Labour Governments—has been pushing across the border between the New Territories and the People's Republic people who have

entered illegally from China. The people of Hong Kong cannot understand why a distinction is drawn between that, which has been constantly happening, and the repatriation of the Vietnamese.
I failed to reply to the right hon. Member for Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) on the question of aid, although I gave an answer to the general point. The reintegration aid being made available for volunteers and for those repatriated last night is $620 per person which goes towards their transport inside Vietnam as well as food, medicines, domestic equipment, training, administration costs and tools. We are perfectly ready to consider expanding and developing that aid. The right hon. Gentleman knows the reasons why Vietnam has not qualified for international aid. It has been connected with the invasion of Cambodia by Vietnamese troops. However, they have to a large extent withdrawn. I regard this as an open question but it is a mistake to suppose that whatever is done about aid will persuade a villager living in the Red river delta to abandon his plans to go to Hong Kong unless and until it becomes clear that such a voyage is not, after a short stopover, a voyage to Vancouver or Australia. That is the illusion that has been fostered among those people. That illusion is damaging to them and we have to end it.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is not one of the background factors the fact that Vietnam was so devastated in the war? It was drenched in napalm from end to end and poisoned with agent orange and then blockaded, and has been ever since, by the United States as a punishment for defeating the United States in the war. Should not the proper policy now be a massive aid programme from the West as repatriation for the injustices that that country has suffered? That would be a more honest policy for the Government.

Mr. Hurd: There is an argument for discussing in the international community the question of aid for Vietnam and how Vietnam is to be treated now that the bulk of its combat troops have withdrawn from Cambodia. The arguments which the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) advances are not likely to gain a great deal of ground with the United States.

Mr. Roger Sims: How many Vietnamese arriving at the shores or borders of Hong Kong have been refused entry and who has been responsible for meeting the cost of accommodating them? Further to the response that my right hon. Friend gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), can he tell us what representations he has received from the American Government, Her Majesty's Opposition and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) about the return, over a number of years, of illegal immigrants from China into Hong Kong?

Mr. Hurd: On the first point, Hong Kong has not turned away people coming from Vietnam and in that respect, it has differed from some of the other neighbouring ports of call. It is precisely because Hong Kong has followed that policy that it has 57,000 boat people in camps. Her Majesty's Government have made a contribution, but a substantial burden has fallen on the people of Hong Kong.
On the second point, I am not aware of any representations having been made on the return of illegal


immigrants across the border into the People's Republic. It is a practice which has been settled for many years. It occurred even when I served in Peking a very long time ago and it has not attracted particular comment or protest.

Mr. David Alton: Will the Secretary of State tell us what consideration he has given to the position of unaccompanied minors and orphans who are currently in the camps in Hong Kong? Does he agree that if the same amount of effort were put into finding an international solution as into the defeatist approach of forcible repatriation, our country might avoid the stain that will be marked indelibly on its international reputation for generations to come, as people are repatriated to a country that has one of the most appalling human rights records in the world?

Mr. Hurd: There are unaccompanied children in the camps and it is hard to divine how they reached Hong Kong. The decision on their future must depend on where their families are. If their parents are back in Vietnam, I suggest that they should go back there, but if their families are resettled in the West, it is sensible that they should join their families in the West. That seems to be a common-sense approach. The hon. Gentleman's rhetoric is damaging because it falls short of the facts. There is a careful screening process to distinguish between those who are refugees and those who are not. Refugees should be accepted and resettled. If the hon. Gentleman and the Opposition parties are beginning to put forward the doctrine that anyone who wants to move from one country to another in search of a better life must, as of right, be accepted there in the cause of humanitarian principle, I can say only that it is a recipe for chaos and great unhappiness throughout the world.

Mr. Jim Lester: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is a sad day for some Conservative Members? Some of us have been very much involved in the matter for a considerable time and well understand the complications. However, there is nothing in my right hon. Friend's statement that deals with the basic problem. These migrants are not escaping from tyranny, but from abject poverty. Those of us who have seen them in Vietnam recognise that the fault lay partly with the Vietnamese Government and their policies, but the Vietnamese Government have now changed their policies and that is part of the reason for people leaving. The new system does not subsidise people in factories that produce goods that are not sold, so people have to leave the factories without a safety net. When the people have no hope, they take to the boats and unless we give the Vietnamese people hope by normalising relations and by pressing the United States to normalise relations with that country, by restoring bilateral and multilateral aid and by giving it access to the International Monetary Fund and the banks, we shall not stop the boat people. There will still be people leaving because when there is no hope, they will continue to leave and to seek somewhere else.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. He has studied the problem with great care for a long time and he has visited Vietnam. He makes the accurate distinction, which has escaped the Opposition, between people fleeing from tyranny and migrants who wish to escape from poverty to what they believe is likely to be prosperity. As I have said already, there is a case for looking again at relationships.

We have political and diplomatic relations with Hanoi and that is not in question, but there is a case for looking again at economic relations. As I have outlined, we are already building them up for those who are repatriated and who volunteer to return. I repeat to my hon. Friend, as I have in answer to earlier questions, that whatever is done about aid, the World bank or the relationship of Vietnam with the international community that will not in itself—and certainly not next year—deter people who are now planning to sail or to go along the south China coast to Hong Kong in the belief that the journey to Hong Kong is halfway to Australia or to Vancouver. We can argue through the remedies that my hon. Friend suggests, but they are not remedies for the immediate critical situation that we and the people of Hong Kong face.

Mr. Chris Mullin: As some hon. Members have already said, is not the main problem that the United States still considers itself to be at war with Vietnam and that those who burned down Vietnam, or who acquiesced in that as we did, are unwilling to participate in its reconstruction? Does the Secretary of State recall an American Under-Secretary describing American policy towards Vietnam 10 years ago as being "to bleed Vietnam white"? Does he agree that until American policy changes, the flow of refugees will continue unabated? Will he tell the House what efforts we have made to persuade the United States Government or our allies in Europe to change their policy towards Vietnam and to participate in its reconstruction?

Mr. Hurd: I have answered that question two or three times already. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said to his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), that we shall not solve or improve the problem by resurrecting all the arguments about the war in Vietnam. It is over and Vietnamese troops are now out of Cambodia. There is a case for examining these points, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) suggests. However, I do not kid myself that by doing so, we shall solve the immediate grave problem.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that it is impossible to separate this issue from our responsibility to govern Hong Kong firmly and fairly until 1997 and that it is quite impossible to explain to the Chinese population in Hong Kong that we are putting their relatives back across the frontier with the mainland day after day yet allowing boat people from Vietnam to remain in Hong Kong?
I support my right hon. Friend in his very lonely and courageous decision. Does he recognise that the Government of mainland China have a substantial interest in the matter and that in trying to prevent increasing numbers of people coming from Vietnam there are interests working in conjunction with the Government of mainland China who wish to persuade the people of Hong Kong that they are as concerned about that colony's future as we are?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and my position is not quite as lonely now that he is alongside. He is perfectly correct on his second point especially now that more of the recent inflow came along the south China


coast rather than across the sea, so there is an interest and involvement for the Government of the People's Republic which we need to discuss with them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that we have an important debate on war crimes to follow. Again, I shall have to limit questions to three more from each side and we shall then have to move on. The House knows that we shall have a debate about this matter next Tuesday.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is this situation not similar to the forcible repatriations that followed world war two in which people were simply left to their fate? What kind of people are we who are willing to sell individuals and families to the Vietnamese for $30 Hong Kong a head? The price of this betrayal is not 30 pieces of silver but $30 Hong Kong. Will the Secretary of State think again and act differently, in the name of humanity?

Mr. Hurd: In 1945, there was no screening or monitoring and no United Nations definition of a refugee. The hon. Gentleman's comparison falls flat.

Sir Philip Goodhart: As the unfortunate boat people are being sent back to a closed and totalitarian society, will my right hon. Friend say exactly how many independent British observers and British relief workers will now be able to move freely throughout Vietnam and to see exactly what happens to those whom we are, so unfortunately, sending back?

Mr. Hurd: I hope that it will be a considerable number. When I met the leaders of some of our non-governmental aid organisations a few weeks ago to discuss Cambodia, I asked and encouraged them to take part in the process of monitoring. As my hon. Friend knows, some of them are already deeply involved in Vietnam. I mentioned the part played by our embassy and the role played by a Member of this House and a Member of the other place. I should like to build up those activities. As soon as the new United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is properly in place, we shall encourage him to extend monitoring over and above what the UNHCR already does to include boat people repatriated last night and in future. I should like to build up the widest possible pattern of monitoring and that seems at present—so far as we can tell—to be acceptable to the Vietnamese Government.

Mr. Pat Wall: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that the mass of the British population will consider the repatriation of men, women and children in the early hours of the morning to be an even greater obscenity than the condition of the camps, which some of us have seen? Are not the Government placing a false perspective on history by calling the Vietnamese boat people economic migrants? Does that not deny the whole lesson of history? This whole people is to be discriminated against once more, even under the terms of the United Nations charter. They had more bombs dropped on them in the American war in Vietnam than were dropped throughout the second world war. Their country has been left devastated, their lands poisoned and their children deformed. Does not that mean that we should take a realistic attitude to raising the necessary finance and

ensuring that the rest of the world takes in the boat people and looks after them and that we give proper aid to the peoples of Vietnam?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman underestimates the commonsense of people in this country. Are the Opposition really intending to set out, as a matter of policy, that people who come to live in an unfortunate country—whatever its history—have the right to be received in another country that they think is somewhat more prosperous? If so, I hope that they will say so.

Mr. Steve Norris: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, far from being lonely in this matter, he enjoys the overwhelming support of those in the House and in the country who are prepared to look beyond an emotional knee-jerk reaction and accept that, however unpleasant the present process may be, it is an inevitable consequence of events that would otherwise result in absolute chaos? My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) drew a comparison between the repatriation of the boat people and the repatriation to China that has been taking place daily for many years, and that is the comparison which should be drawn in the best interests of everyone in Britain.

Mr. Hurd: I can quite understand people in Britain who come new to the problem, and who have not had it drawn to their attention before, feeling dismayed. I have very much less sympathy for those who have studied the problem and lived with it for months—in some cases, years—but who still turn their back on the reality of it. I have very little sympathy for them.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: The Foreign Secretary said that the effect of restoring aid would be small and delayed. Will he consider whether the further repatriation of refugees could be delayed until aid has had time to have a significant effect, with only new Vietnamese arrivals in Hong Kong being repatriated in the mean time?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has made a constructive, although not wholly realistic, suggestion. Our key objective—and our urgent objective—is to prevent new arrivals. Because of the doctrine of first asylum, we do not have a system for turning people round quickly. We cannot act as the United States acts in the case of people coming from the Caribbean. That is one reason why I felt it essential to repatriate to show the people who might even now be planning to come in the spring, when the winds change and the season begins that it is not a happy voyage and will not lead them to resettlement in the West.

Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend rightly emphasised again and again that we are not dealing only with the problem of the 40,000 who are there already. We are dealing with those who will follow. Does he accept that, as a result of our exchanges in the House today, he will have to explain that repeatedly to the Opposition parties, which take the simplistic view that if we solved the problem of the 40,000 there would be no more problems? But that figure could be 400,000 or 1 million if we do not take the proper action now.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is on to the central point. Any scheme that simply resettled the 40,000 people in the


camps who are likely to he screened out and classified as non-refugees would ensure that the camps refilled very quickly.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that it has not been possible to call all the hon. Members who wished to participate, but I shall bear their claims in mind when we debate the matter next Tuesday.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the nine motions relating to draft statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Electricity Supply Industry (Rateable Values) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Waterways Board (Rateable Values) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Railways (Rateable Values) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Telecommunications Industry (Rateable Values) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft British Gas plc (Rateable Values) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Transitional Period) (Appropriate Fraction) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

War Crimes

Sir Bernard Braine: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the report of the War Crimes Inquiry; and endorses the need for legislation to permit the prosecution in this country, for acts of murder and manslaughter or culpable homicide committed as war crimes in Germany, or German-occupied territory, during the Second World War, of people who are now British citizens or resident here.

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the House that I have selected neither of the amendments on the Order Paper. Moreover, a very large number of right hon. and hon. Members have written in seeking to participate in the debate. I urge them all, if they are called, to be brief.

Sir Bernard Braine: In October 1986 the Simon Wiesenthal Centre wrote to the Prime Minister with a list of 17 alleged Nazi war criminals said to be living in this country. Scottish Television made a programme on the subject at about the same time and obtained from the Soviet Union a further list of 34 suspects believed to be living here. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who was then Home Secretary, examined the allegations and concluded that 10 of the 17 names on the Wiesenthal Centre list and seven of the 34 names on the Scottish Television list might be alive in this country.
In February 1988 my right hon. Friend announced that Sir Thomas Hetherington, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. William Chalmers, the former Crown Agent for Scotland, would prepare a detailed report. My right hon. Friend presented their report to Parliament on 24 July. It recommended that British criminal law should be changed to make possible the prosecution of a number of individuals for Nazi war crimes.
Details of those investigated were quite rightly placed in an unpublished annex to the main report, which stated that they revealed
horrific instances of mass murder.
The investigations related specifically to three individuals against whom there is sufficient evidence to warrant immediate prosecution; three cases in which detailed investigation has taken place but more is required; 75 cases in which detailed investigation is still needed; and 46 further cases in which suspects are so far untraced—a possible total of 124 cases.
At present, under our law, murder and manslaughter committed during the second world war anywhere in the world can be prosecuted in British courts only if the person who committed the alleged offence was a British citizen or resident here when the crime was committed. The inquiry recommends that the law be changed so that persons who now live in Britain may be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter committed as a violation of the laws and customs of war in Germany or German-occupied territory during the second world war. The effect of that change is that a criminal law as already applied to those who were British citizens at the time of the alleged murders would apply equally to persons who later acquired British citizenship or residence. This is simply to recognise an obvious truth: that the acquisition of British citizenship confers both privileges and responsibilities.
In common with all other western countries, the British legal system has a proud tradition of resistance to the


retrospective introduction of offences into our criminal law. The Hetherington-Chalmers report fully endorses that tradition. Under its proposals, no new offences will be created. The changes will be retrospective only in so far as those who were not British citizens or residents at the time will now be liable to face charges that could always have been made against British citizens.
Not only were such crimes against our domestic law but they were against international law at the time. They were crimes against the accepted and recognised law of all civilised nations. What is more, current international conventions to which Britain is party explicitly permit such legislation. It might be thought unusual that, if the proposed legislation is enacted, British courts will be required to try individuals for crimes committed overseas. Not so. When an offence is considered sufficiently serious, British courts already have criminal jurisdiction over persons who did not have British citizenship or residence at the time of the offence. Our courts have been granted extraterritorial jurisdiction relating to hijacking, terrorism and the practice of torture. The inquiry's recommendations in respect of the rules of evidence are all in line with our current practices.
The Criminal Justice Act 1988 provided for the use of live video links in England and Wales. The recommended change would bring Scots law into line with the 1988 Act. The inquiry recommends that the recorded statements of persons now dead should be admissible as evidence. That requires no new legislation. As a guarantee of fairness, the courts have wide powers to determine whether such statements should be admitted as evidence.
It is important to recognise that, if we approve legislation on the lines recommended, Britain will not be standing alone. Indeed, we are the last of the allied powers engaged in the second world war to bring war criminals to justice. Legislation to allow for the retroactive punishment of Nazi criminals has recently been sponsored by the Governments of two countries whose legal and constitutional systems are based upon our own—Canada and Australia. Both have enacted war crimes legislation. Both have acted on recommendations from commissions of inquiry which held that such measures were in accordance with their own constitutions and with international law. In Canada, legislation was passed in September 1987, and proceedings against alleged war criminals are now under way. In Australia, the Government-commissioned Menzies review reported to the Attorney-General in November 1986 with detailed allegations against 70 persons whose former activities warranted further investigation.

Mr. John Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Bernard Braine: I would rather not give way. I listened carefully to what Mr. Speaker said about the large number of hon. Members who wish to contribute to our debate. If I give way once, I shall have to give way on another occasion. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand.
Appropriate legislation was introduced in Australia in December 1988, and trials are expected to start quite soon. The United States changed its immigration law 10 years ago so that Nazi criminals could be stripped of their

citizenship and deported. In 1980, the United States Justice Department set up the Office of Special Investigations which, so far, has successfully proceeded against about 30 persons. In western Europe, France, Holland and West Germany continue to mount investigations and prosecutions.
Of course, I recognise that this grave issue has given rise to moral doubts and reservations, and that is only right —it is only human. First, there are those who say, "It happened a long time ago." To them I reply that there is no period of limitation in English or Scots law for the prosecution of murder or manslaughter. Indeed, various United Nations and European conventions require states not to impose statutes of limitation on the prosecution of war crimes. Police and prosecutors investigate and prosecute murder committed in Britain, however long ago such crimes were committed. Indeed, the report refers to an alleged domestic murder committed 27 years ago. Certainly public opinion in this country would be outraged if the real perpetrators of the Guildford bombing were traced but were then released because the offence was committed some 15 years ago.
Secondly, there are those who, I am sorry to say, have not read the report but who tell me, "Surely after such a lapse of time there is insufficient evidence." To them I reply that Sir Thomas and Mr. Chalmers were appointed to their task by the Home Secretary precisely because of their experience as experienced and much-respected prosecutors. They are used to applying a strict test of the evidence in a case before recommending it for prosecution—that there must be a greater than 50 per cent. chance of conviction. It was on that basis that they found sufficient evidence of murder and manslaughter against a number of persons. However, as is the norm with criminal legislation, my supporters and I ask hon. Members to consider only enabling legislation. Whether or not prosecutions go ahead is not a matter for us. It will be for the current Director of Public Prosecutions or the Crown Agent.
Thirdly, there are those who say, "Such trials run counter to the Christian concept of mercy." Not so. The concepts of justice and mercy run alongside, not against, each other in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. A former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Coggan, went right to the heart of the matter in his letter to The Times in March 1987, when he wrote:
Justice demands that society takes note of wrongs committed, and does so in such a way as to ensure, in so far as possible, that such atrocities do not occur again…It is hardly for one who has not suffered at the hands of the Nazis to hint at which way the scales should be tilted.
Fourthly, it may be argued that it would be wrong to prosecute old men. There is no question of putting frail old men in the dock. In any criminal case in this country, if a defendant is unfit to mount a proper defence, it is the normal practice not to proceed.
Fifthly, some argue, "Terrible things happen in war. Why single out these particular acts?" The answer is that these were not crimes committed in the heat of battle. They are cases of mass murder of non-combatants—the slaughter of whole communities and of women and children. Such murders were premeditated—planned. I hope that the House will forgive me for mentioning one case which has been in my heart and mind ever since I saw people coming out of concentration camps at the end of the war. In 1942, the Nazi leadership met at the infamous Wannsee conference. It was resolved there that mass


murder by carbon monoxide gas was too costly and laborious and that instead gas chambers would be built —it would he cheaper and quicker. Such calculating cold-blooded criminality had nothing to do with savagery in the heat of battle. Let me be clear about the sort of crime that I and my supporters are talking about.
On 15 April 1946, during the Nuremberg tribunal, the chief witness for the defendant, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, was called to the stand. His name was Rudolph Hoess. From 1940 to 1943 Hoess was the commandant of Auschwitz, where he presided over 2·5 million planned deaths. While in the witness box, his signed affidavit was read out in open court. It stated:
The Final Solution of the Jewish Question meant the complete extermination of all Jews in Europe. I was ordered to establish extermination facilities at Auschwitz in June 1941.
I visited Treblinka to find out how they carried out their exterminations. The camp commandant told me that he had liquidated 80,000 in the course of one half-year. He was principally concerned with liquidating all the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto. He used monoxide gas, and I did not think that his methods were very efficient.
So when I set up the extermination building at Auschwitz, I used Zyklon B, which was crystallised prussic acid that we dropped into the death chamber from a small opening.
It took from 3 to 15 minutes to kill the people in the death chamber, depending upon climatic conditions. We knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped.
We usually waited about half-an-hour before we opened the doors and removed the bodies. After the bodies were removed, our special commandos took off the rings and extracted the gold from the teeth of their corpses.
In 1943, along with the United States of America, Canada and the USSR, Britain signed the Moscow declaration, committing itself to the pursuit of Nazi war criminals. Britain gave this solemn undertaking:
Most assuredly, the Allied Powers will pursue them to the uttermost ends of the earth and deliver them to their accusers in order that justice may be done.
As the Hetherington-Chalmers report reminds us, Britain has never taken a decision not to prosecute war criminals. The question that we must now resolve is, "Why should we act now?" There are two reasons. First, mass murders of the kind that I have described are as abhorrent to the British people now as they were on the day and at the place they were committed. Secondly, we must make it clear before the entire world that the proud privilege of British citizenship cannot and must never be extended to vile criminals.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It was a privilege to listen to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who heads the list of the sponsors of early-day motion 18. He is a fellow member of the all-party group on war crimes, of which I am chairman. It would put the group into context if I said that for three years we have run an office, raised money and run a conference. We have hosted visits from the United States of America, Canada and Australia to find out what is going on in those countries and what changes have been made in their laws. We have also commissioned a report on the legal aspects of these cases in advance of the report that we are, effectively, debating today. In addition, we gave evidence to the inquiry. I hope that it has proved to be a model of an all-party group of hon. Members, and not a pressure group, although wishing to

pressure the Government. I do not commit all of us in the group to having the same views about what should happen.
In a sense, the inquiry took over from us because we had reached the limit of what an all-party group could do.
It was right that under a previous Home Secretary the Government set up the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry, which issued a report, which is the core of our debate. It was right that two 'Law Officers', one of Scotland and one of England and Wales, should carry out the inquiry because one of the aims that we could not achieve, with all the evidence put to us, was to consider the extent of the problem in this country, the numbers of people involved in this country and the number of those against whom allegations had been made who could be brought before the courts. It is the job of the Director of Public Prosecutions to make such decisions on a daily basis, working with the Attorney-General.
People coming from America, Australia and Canada found it strange that there was no question of setting up a special inquiry to investigate people against whom allegations had been made because only the police in this country can carry out investigations in the face of allegations and only then if the law has been broken. As things are at the moment, if I had carried out those crimes in middle and eastern Europe, I could be brought before the courts because I was born and bred in this country. However, if the person living next door to me had carried out those crimes, come here as a displaced person, settled here and taken out British citizenship, that person could not be brought before the courts because despite having, become a British citizen—and some have—that person is not in the same position as somebody who was born here. One thing that has motivated me is that if one becomes a British citizen, one must accept that there are responsibilities and rights as well as advantages in coming to this country—

Mr. Quentin Davies: rose—

Mr. Rees: No, I should rather not give way.
I turn now to the motion and remind the House of what we are debating. We are asking the House to take note of the war crimes inquiry and to endorse
the need for legislation…for acts of murder and manslaughter or culpable homicide committed as war crimes in Germany, or German-occupied territory, during the Second World War, of people who are now British citizens or resident here.
That is what we are debating today in this authorising debate.
As I go around the country, I am often asked, "What is a war crime?" I must point out that the term "war crime" does not refer to acts committed in the course of war because most of the crimes that we are talking about had nothing to do with the German war effort. Indeed, some occurred before the second world war began and they did not necessarily arise in the period 1939–45. Most of the crimes were perpetrated on the ground of the victims' race, religion or belief. Knowing that I served in the Royal Air Force, younger people have asked me when I have argued this case, "What about the bombing of Dresden when 130,000 people were killed in one night?" It might have been 120,000—it does not matter very much to the argument. When I visit Dortmund, which is paired with my city of Leeds, and where we killed 2,000 people per night over a period as part of the war, I sometimes find it


difficult to define where a war crime begins and ends. However, when I read about the sort of thing that we are discussing, when in the cool of the night 2,000 people were killed in the way that they were, I know that that is a war crime—

Mr. Quentin Davies: rose—

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: What about the Cossacks?

Mr. Rees: There are those who say, "What good will it do to bring it all back again now?" To those who have doubts and to the younger people who knew not, I say simply that if the Director of Public Prosecutions says so, those who committed such crimes should be brought before the courts. I do not particularly want to lock them up or to see them in show trials, but I believe that the world should know that such things will never be forgotten and they should be brought before—

Mr. Quentin Davies: rose

Mr. Rees: I would rather not give way.
The report said, in relation to the evidence, that there were unpublished findings of horrific instances of massacres; that there were three individuals against whom there was sufficient evidence to warrant immediate prosecution; that in three cases detailed investigation had taken place but more was required; that in 75 cases detailed investigation was needed; and that in 46 further cases suspects were still untraced. The words that moved me most were:
The crimes committed are so monstrous that they cannot be condoned.

Mr. Quentin Davies: What crimes?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman should have done us the courtesy of reading the report, which said that their prosecution could act as a deterrent in future wars. To take no action would taint the United Kingdom with the slur of being a haven for war criminals. The question of evidence has been raised on a number of occasions and I agree that it will need to be examined carefully when the Bill following the debate is brought before the House. In a speech at a conference which we organised, Sir Thomas Hetherington said:
If Parliament does legislate, if these cases do come to the DPP or Crown Agent, in each case there will be two main tests to be applied before a decision about prosecution will be taken. First of all, the adequacy of the evidence will be tested to make sure there is, as we believe, a realistic prospect of conviction in the light of the witnesses who are then available. The second main test, which is now always applied before the decision to prosecute is affirmed is whether it would be in the public interest. So not only could you prosecute, but should you prosecute. And in the public interest element, amongst those matters to be considered will be: fairness to the defendant; age of the defendant; infirmity of the defendant; and all the other matters that are taken into account.
In other words, the matters that are of concern to hon. Members will be dealt with.
It is asked whether Soviet-source evidence is reliable. It has been brought to our notice that documents and witnesses from the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc countries are likely to be relevant, in the experience of

other western countries. That was put to us by Americans, and of all nations, the citizens of that country would be likely to question evidence from the Soviet Union.
In the experience of other western countries that have proceeded against alleged Nazi war criminals, evidence produced by Soviet citizens or Soviet authorities has proved consistently reliable. Access to Soviet-source evidence is given to all parties in proceedings.
The Hetherington-Chalmers report found Soviet-source documents authentic and witnesses credible, and said:
Expert testimony in court is recommended as the best means of testing the authenticity of documents as material evidence.
I suggest that the main points of the report appear in the concluding summary where it says:
In our opinion, there is sufficient evidence to support criminal proceedings for murder against some persons living in the United Kingdom…and further investigations may disclose the necessary evidence against other such persons…The cases we have investigated disclose horrific instances of mass murders, and we do not consider that the lapse of time since the offences were committed, or the age of the offenders, provide sufficient reason for taking no action in such cases. We therefore recommend that some action should be taken in each case in which the evidence is adequate.
That evidence came not from politicians but from the Hetherington-Chalmers report.

Mr. Edward Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman read on?

Mr. Rees: Willingly:
In paragraph 9.18 we describe possible courses of action. We do not recommend deprivation of citizenship and deportation".
That is the point that I assume the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. It continues:
The remaining possibilities are prosecution and extradition.
I had not intended to follow the line of extradition. I remember from my days as Home Secretary that extradition did not necessarily avoid going to court. If the Home Secretary of the day orders extradition and if an extradition treaty is available—and in this case there is not —the person concerned can elect to go before the Court of Appeal, so that the question of trial is not avoided.
I can say, from my experience of a small part of Europe about which we have been reading following a recent court case, that one cannot but recall the chaos of the ghastly effects of the break up of society in the Balkans area which led to a lack of screening and large numbers of displaced people coming to this country. Many of them came to the mining village in which I was born. They have played a major part in the social life of the village, and they are good people. Nothing in my argument is concerned with the people from the Baltic or the Balkans or from that area, where the feelings and, in many instances, the hatred of nationalism arise to a great degree. We are not talking of a large number of people.
At this time, when the icecap of Stalinist Europe is cracking, it seems curious that we should be talking about a part of the world where there is little tradition of democracy but which is full of feelings of nationalism that have caused problems over the years, and we now know what happened during the war years.
We cannot forget other matters because of that. We must deal with those who inveigled their way into this country and who did not tell the truth about their past activities. I hope that the House will authorise the


Government to provide the necessary legislation. I wonder what sort of majority will be required today so that the Government will act, and I believe that they have acted honourably all the way through.
I hope that we can have the necessary special procedure for dealing with the Bill that would come forward. It would be appropriate to take evidence in Committee upstairs rather than deal with it as a party political measure. There are ways of carrying on the tradition that we in the all-party group have built up over the last three years. Let matters continue in that way. This is a special problem and I hope that we will use special measures to deal with it in the House. Accordingly, I hope that hon. Members will vote for the motion.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): When the report of the war crimes inquiry was published, my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary promised a debate, and that is why we are here today.
The events which led to the setting up of the inquiry are well known. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) referred to the letter addressed to the Prime Minister by Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the grave allegations contained therein. The whole House will agree that those allegations had to be investigated.
My right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary therefore appointed Sir Thomas Hetherington, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, and his Scottish counterpart, Mr. William Chalmers, to carry out the task. The whole House would like me to thank them both for the dedicated and thorough way in which they approached the work and the clarity of the report they produced.
Sir Thomas and Mr. Chalmers set about following up no fewer than 301 allegations that had been made to them. Some of those were detailed and specific. Others were extremely vague. But it proved possible to investigate seven cases in detail. In four of them, they considered that the evidence available was sufficient to mount a prosecution. One of the four people concerned has since died. They recommended additional work on the three other cases and they identified 75 others in which further investigation would be warranted. They also recommended that attempts should be made to trace a further 46.
In the light of the apparently strong evidence of guilt which the authors had uncovered in at least some of the cases, the inquiry considered possible courses of action that might be taken to bring the alleged offenders to justice. The inquiry ruled out the possibility of depriving the individuals concerned of their citizenship and deporting them. Any attempts at deportation were certain to be resisted strenuously through the immigration appeals system and the courts, and would probably be frustrated. Extradition to the place where the offence was committed —in each of the cases examined in detail, now part of the territory of the Soviet Union—was also rejected. The inquiry noted the apparent progress towards greater democracy and openness that had recently been made in the Soviet Union, but concluded that despite these changes there must still be doubts whether the legal safeguards that would be the right of anyone put on trial in this country would be available in the Soviet Union. The inquiry therefore recommended that our law should be changed to

give British courts jurisdiction over acts of murder and manslaughter committed as war crimes—that is to say, as violations of the laws and customs of war—during the second world war in Germany or German-occupied territory by people now resident here.
In last week's debate in another place, one of the main points of concern was whether the implementation of these recommendations would amount to retrospective legislation. There are clearly two views about this, but the inquiry suggests that retrospectivity does not arise and points out that had these crimes been committed by British citizens our courts would have had jurisdiction over them. Their proposal was simply to extend that jurisdiction to those who were not British citizens or residents at the time but are now.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: How is German-occupied territory defined? Germany and her allies—Italy, Romania and Hungary, for instance—occupied a great deal of territory, for example Russian territory, sometimes with German officers attached and sometimes without. There were German bases in Italy when Italy was not German-occupied. How is that to be defined in law?

Mr. Waddington: It is certain that the Baltic states, Byelorussia and the Ukraine were German-occupied at the time of the alleged offences.

Mr. Quentin Davies: On that specific point, does my right hon. and learned Friend see any rhyme or reason in the jurisdiction which it is proposed to take under the proposal being confined to acts committed in German-occupied countries but not to crimes committed on territory occupied by other powers, for example, the Soviet Union? Does not the logic of that lead us into the absurdity that if the Katyn massacre had been committed by Germans, as the Soviet Union used to maintain but which we now know is nonsense—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member should not make a speech during an intervention.

Mr. Waddington: There is not the slightest evidence that any foreigner resident in Britain could have been responsible for the Katyn massacre. The report calls for jurisdiction to be given to the British courts to try people whom it says have been identified as responsible for war crimes in particular parts of the world. One must address one's mind to the circumstances identified in the report.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Unquestionably, many people in this country were responsible after 1945 for sending people back at bayonet point to the other side of the divide to be butchered. Will legislation be introduced for those who, no doubt, will claim that they were acting under orders—one recently did—when they sent back thousands of men, women and children to be massacred in their own sight? Is that to be a war crime?

Mr. Waddington: I do not concede for one moment that those people were guilty of war crimes but, if they were guilty, they would be triable here because they are British citizens. My hon. and learned Friend's point does not arise.
It is certain that the acts alleged were crimes under the law of this country and under international law at the time


when they were committed. It is equally certain that no one who committed the acts described could have imagined for one moment that what he was doing was not a crime.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, was the main moving force behind the Nuremberg war crimes trials. He will also be aware that in September 1946, 43 years ago, Churchill said:
There must be an end to retribution. We must turn our backs on the horrors of the past and look to the future.
If that was true 43 years ago, surely it is true now.

Mr. Waddington: After that, the decision was made not to proceed with war crimes trials in the British-occupied zone. We are not talking about that. No decision was ever made by a British Government that there should be an end to all war crimes trials, least of all that there should be an exemption from prosecution for all time for people resident in this country who had been proved guilty of war crimes.
I repeat that it is absolutely certain that no one who committed the acts described could have imagined for one moment that what he was doing was not a crime. This is not a proposal to criminalise actions that were not criminal at the time. It is a proposal to give our courts power to try here actions which were undeniably criminal and which the perpetrators must have known were wicked and criminal.

Mr. Gorst: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves that point, may I draw his attention to page 55 of the report in which the authors set out clearly that there is a precedent for us in this country to try war criminals who have never been tried within the United Kingdom, because we extended our jurisdiction by the royal warrant of June 1945. That enabled us to try war criminals. We did so and were not fettered by the question of which territory they should be tried in.

Mr. Waddington: I take the point made in the report. I was merely meeting the argument that to do what is proposed would be offensive as retrospective legislation.
The inquiry also made a number of related proposals about the practical and procedural steps that might have to be taken before any trials could take place. They were concerned in particular with the problems posed by the need to take evidence from elderly people living abroad. Their principal recommendation was that such witnesses should be able to give evidence through a live television link, legislative provision for which exists already for trials in England and Wales under the powers in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. They also advocated the extension to war crimes trials of the procedure for bypassing committal proceedings, already available in serious fraud cases. That in itself would require legislation.
In last week's debate many noble Lords made clear their view that no action should be taken on the Hetherington report. Those who hold to that view have no wish to blot out the memory of the terrible atrocities that occurred. That would be quite impossible. Rather, their doubts about proceeding centre on the length of time that has elapsed since the end of the war. There is an understandable feeling that time may have gone some way towards healing some of the wounds and pain.
More importantly, it is argued that those who witnessed these terrible events are, in many cases, dead or very elderly. No one doubts that some who suffered from these dreadful events yet survived will go to their graves with the full horror of them still printed vividly and indelibly on their minds. One has to face the fact that others might have great difficulty identifying accurately those involved. There are also, no doubt, some colleagues who feel that it would be impossible to ensure that the evidence of witnesses abroad was open to fair challenge by the defence, even if that evidence was given via a television link. Other hon. Members may judge that, in all the circumstances and after the passage of such a long time, it would be impossible for anyone accused to gather evidence and witnesses in his defence.
I respect the views of those who see insurmountable difficulties in the way of fair trial. I understand the view, expressed in another place, that the substantial sums that would be incurred in implementing the report would be better spent on other things. I also appreciate why some feel that putting on trial elderly men who have lived in this country peacefully for nearly 45 years is distasteful and would serve little purpose. Nothing we do now, they say, can ever make amends for what happened in the last war, and holding war crimes trials might even risk rekindling old prejudices. That is one side of the case, but there are powerful arguments the other way.
First, there is the dreadful magnitude of the events that we are discussing. We are not talking of excesses or cruelty by soldiers on soldiers carried out in the heat of battle. We are talking about premeditated acts of cold-blooded mass murder perpetrated upon defenceless civilians. Some, therefore, will argue that justice demands action. Some will say that time may have passed, but with crimes as terrible as these it should never be too late to prosecute, and that we have a duty to the memory of those who suffered and those who continue to suffer from the physical and mental wounds inflicted upon them to bring the guilty to justice.
Each one of us is entitled to his view, and each Member of the House and each member of the Government will make up his mind without advice from anybody. The House, however, would expect me to state my personal view, having studied the issue carefully. It is this. Nobody would have chosen to address these issues so long after the event. It is so long since the war, and the instinctive wish of most of us is to get on with our lives in peace and not to rake over the past, let alone the pasts of men who have lived peacefully in this country since before some hon. Members were even born. But sometimes one is brought face to face with facts that cannot be buried and I do not believe that the Hetherington report can just be interred. The terrible stories revealed in its pages and the evidence of foul deeds that is presented cannot just be put aside or ignored.
I see all the difficulties. Difficulties might be involved in presenting to a jury compelling evidence of the guilt of any individual so long after the event. There are problems involved in securing proper safeguards for an accused person. But evidence has now been put before us that people in our midst committed war crimes. It has been pointed out to us that such people would now be subject to the jurisdiction of this land, had they been British citizens at the time, and that they now escape from such jurisdiction only because they were not then subjects of the Crown. In the light of that, and despite all the difficulties, I cannot believe that we should now fail to give jurisdiction


to our courts so that, if the independent prosecution authorities so decide, the issues of guilt or innocence can be properly determined.
Although I have offered my view on the issue before us, I must stress again that the Government have not yet formed an opinion on whether we should legislate to implement the inquiry's recommendations. I have listened with care to what has already been said, and will pay equal care to the views that will be expressed in the rest of the debate. In the light of those views and of the views expressed in another place, the Government will decide whether a Bill on the lines proposed by the inquiry would be likely to command the general support of Parliament.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: No topic on which I have spoken during my 25 years in this House has raised so many doubts in my mind as the subject which we discuss today. Tonight my hon. Friends will vote according to their conscience and I shall do the same. I do not propose to offer the House any advice. I simply set out my instincts and judgments, and describe the conclusion to which they have led me.
The motion before us refers to "War Crimes"—the title of the Hetherington-Chalmers report, on which most of what we say depends. I wish that we were discussing war crimes in general. That would resolve at least part of my dilemma. In truth we are discussing war criminals or, to put it more properly, alleged war criminals. Indeed, the Home Secretary was explicit. He said that we were considering legislation to try people resident in the United Kingdom.
We are debating the Hetherington-Chalmers recommendations. That is the purpose of the debate promised by the Home Secretary on 24 July. The opening paragraph of that report makes it clear that it is primarily concerned with 10 alleged war criminals, whose names appear on the list supplied by the Wiesenthal Centre and seven from a list drawn up by the Soviet Union and broadcast on Scottish television. The final paragraph of the report is even more explicit:
Given the ages of the suspects and the witnesses, we consider that any proposed legislation should be introduced and brought into force as quickly as possible.
I am deeply uneasy about hurrying legislation through the House in the hope of convicting known individuals.
New legislation aimed at the prosecution of known suspects is a much more dubious proposition than law designed to prohibit a specific form of conduct. Since some of the suspects have been named in newspapers and on television, it may even be impossible for them to obtain a fair trial. The courts may not allow such prosecutions to proceed.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No, it is much better if, in common with others who have spoken, I make my speech and give others the maximum opportunity to do the same.
In any event, as a matter of principle it would be much better to introduce general legislation, ideally in the terms of the Geneva convention of 1949, which made possible the prosecution of criminals from any war who take refuge in the United Kingdom and are protected by some anomaly of jurisdiction. I hope that even now the Government have not ruled out that possibility.
I shall discuss my dilemma and tell the House the conclusion to which it leads me by considering the nature of the suspects, the people that we are debating. Those suspects share three characteristics. First, it is alleged that they committed terrible crimes almost 50 years ago. Secondly, if the allegations are true, they committed those crimes at a time and in a place which excludes them from the jurisdiction of British courts. Thirdly, even if the jurisdiction of our courts is extended to cover the alleged crimes, some changes in the rules of evidence may be necessary in order to secure conviction.
I want to discuss the implications of each of those aspects of my dilemma, and the first is the propriety of initiating prosecutions for crimes that were committed almost half a century ago. The question has two aspects, the first of which is what effect delayed prosecutions will have on society in general and, more important, whether it is right in itself not only to prosecute men who are suspected of committing crimes so long ago but to change the law in order to do so.
Prosecution and punishment have many purposes such as the deterrence of other potential criminals, the reformation of those guilty of crime, protection against repetition of the offence, retribution and the demonstration of revulsion which society feels towards both the crime and the criminal. Plainly, not all those objectives will be achieved by the prosecutions that we are considering. Despite what was said so movingly in the House of Lords by the Chief Rabbi, I do not think that the idea of deterrence is remotely appropriate in this case. In any event, if that were our primary objective we would be promoting general legislation against all war crimes. Plainly, the people reported to the Government as fugitive criminals are wholly inappropriate to any process of rehabilitation. It is inconceivable that such people need to be locked away to prevent them from repeating their offences.
Two possible justifications for taking action remain. The first is retribution, which to me is the least acceptable reason for judicial punishment. Therefore, I am left with only one possible reason for us to proceed—the demonstration of society's continued abhorrence of what these men are alleged to have done.
In what I shall describe as normal cases—even murder —it is inappropriate after 50 years to change the law to allow suspects to be charged, even to demonstrate abhorrence. However, we are discussing what the Hetherington—Chalmers report describes as
Crimes so monstrous that they cannot be condoned.
I know of no one who seeks to condone them, but the House and Parliament have to go a step further. We have to demonstrate our abiding revulsion of what amounted to carefully planned and clinically executed genocide, no matter how long a period has elapsed between the commission of that offence and the trial of those whom, it is claimed, were responsible for it.
For that reason I regard it right, at least in principle, to proceed towards prosecutions, although I look with foreboding upon the by-products of that decision. A section of the British press will deal with any resulting trials in the prurient fashion that characterised their coverage of the capital punishment debate five years ago. As is so often the case, the excesses of some of our newspapers are the price we have to pay for a free society. Despite that foreboding, I am in favour of proceeding


towards prosecutions as long as that is possible within the accepted rules of law and the conventions of a democratic society.
That leads me to the conclusion that the prosecutions must take place within the United Kingdom. I could not support legislation that resulted in the deportation of the alleged offenders to countries where, in the words of the report,
the system of justice is not comparable with that in this country".
In any case I would never vote for the deportation or extradition of those accused of murder—even mass murder—to a country that retains the death penalty. If we are to prosecute, we must prosecute here. We cannot discreetly turn away and ship these old men somewhere abroad.
I know that the principle that I support requires retrospective changes to the jurisdiction of British courts. However, as we have been told, the individuals concerned would have been triable in Britain had they been citizens when the alleged offences were committed rather than foreign nationals who subsequently acquired British citizenship. I might be prepared to argue that acquisition of a new nationality should provide immunity from some prosecutions, but mass murder would not be one of them.
The 1957 Geneva convention implies that war crimes are offences over which it is suitable for British courts to exercise jurisdiction regardless of the nationalities of the perpetrators or the victims or the country in which the alleged offence took place. I am prepared to support the retrospective extension of jurisdiction in order to demonstrate the abiding national sense of revulsion.
That leaves me with one final question: is it possible to prosecute these alleged criminals with any prospect of success within the present rules of evidence? There is much in the Hetherington report which implies or suggests that there is not. I am certainly opposed to show trials, so that if there is no hope of conviction, I am against the matter proceeding. However, I am even more strongly opposed to the matter proceeding if its progress depends on changing for this category of offence the way in which our courts behave.
It is that final question that leads me to fear that many of the allegations against these men, admittedly carefully documented, are increasingly taken as proof of their guilt and that only the formalities of proof are now thought to be necessary. Of course, I do not accuse the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry of holding such opinions, but the report contains statements about evidence which raise the fundamental question about whether it is possible to proceed in an acceptable fashion. Paragraph 9.39 deals with witnesses who are now dead. It says:
It would undoubtedly be helpful if…statements, taken from witnesses who have subsequently died, could be admissible in the British courts.
The question that arises is "helpful to whom?" The only answer consistent with the context is that it would be helpful to those who wish to obtain a conviction. That is a bad basis on which to make new laws.

Mr. Peter Archer: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this would not require any change in the law? The Criminal Justice Act 1988 has the required provision.

Mr. Hattersley: In moving the motion the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) made exactly that point. I am loth to argue with a lawyer as distinguished and experienced as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), but as I go through the section of the Hetherington report from which I have already quoted, and from which I shall quote again as lucidly as I can, I find time after time the suggestion that changes in the law are necessary. If that is not the case, nobody will be happier than I. I repeat that I think that the prosecution should go ahead.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West will speak in the debate. Perhaps if he does so he will examine the sections of the report that deal with changes in the rules of evidence that the report recommends in order to deal with these specific cases.
Paragraph 9.34 recommends that the provision in the 1988 Act to allow witnesses to give evidence by television link be extended—for this particular—to Scotland. Paragraph 9.37, which deals with video and audio recordings, concludes:
if it is thought necessary to introduce new legislation to ensure the admissibility of such recordings, we so recommend.
The next paragraph concerns evidence on commission, and expresses doubts about whether such evidence—as it would probably be taken in the absence of the accused —would be acceptable in court. It goes on to say, however, that the process has something to commend it, and proposes that it be applied in Scotland and considered for use in the English courts, with the necessary adjustments. I must confess that, as a layman, I am not clear about whether those adjustments would be changes in the law or alterations in judicial practice.
Paragraph 9.42 deals with the wide subject of "other documentary evidence". It proposes that papers from wartime archives should be admitted in evidence if authenticated by archivists, and specifically recommends amending legislation to make that possible.
According to the internal evidence—the evidence in the report, on which our debate is based—changes in the law are either necessary or, in the terms set out, desirable; and it is that that concerns me most. I could not possibly vote for proposals to change the rules of evidence with the specific intention of obtaining the convictions of a particular class of person—persons who are known and named. Fortunately, the motion does not require us to do that. I very much regret that the Home Secretary has complicated my position further by saying at the end of his speech that, if we voted for the motion, we would be voting to implement the Hetherington report, for that is not what the motion says; it proposes that we take note of the report and then proceed to consider what legislation is possible.
I am perfectly prepared to take note of the report, and to instruct the Home Secretary to consider implementing whatever legislation is decently possible to prosecute alleged war criminals. I hope, however, that the Home Secretary will not believe that many of the hon. Members who join him in the Aye Lobby tonight will be voting for what he said. We are voting for what the motion says: there is a substantial difference.
The motion does not refer to the problems of evidence or to the details of the Hetherington report, nor does it require us to endorse that report's most contentious passages. I am entirely ready to support the principle of


proceeding to legislation, and, as I have said, I will vote in the Aye Lobby tonight. Let me, however, make it clear to the Home Secretary—and I suspect that I speak for some hon. Members on both sides of the House—that, although I support the motion in principle, I could not possibly support any subsequent Bill requiring or recommending changes in the rules of evidence.
I do not wish to overstate my objections to such a course, for this is not an occasion for the usual excesses and rough and tumble of our debates. I must say, however, that it seems to me that changes in the rules of evidence in such circumstances constitute a negation of our basic freedoms, and it is the mark of a civilised society to preserve those freedoms, even for—perhaps, indeed, especially for—the people whom society despises most.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has become apparent that legal difficulties are inherent in the change in the law that might be required, particularly with regard to the rules of evidence. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is in the Chamber, would it be possible for him to catch your eye later so that we might hear his opinion of what the difficulties may be and how they can be approached?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the Attorney-General.

Mr. Edward Heath: In his concluding remarks, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that we could not push these matters to one side. Nothing can ever push them to one side, and no one is suggesting for a moment that we should even attempt it.
I remember, as a boy in the 1930s, seeing the refugees arriving at Pegwell bay and Sandwich and going into encampments there in search of refuge from Nazidom and all that it meant. I was at Nuremberg in 1937, and I saw exactly what it meant. I met them all: I saw who they were and what they were like. I experienced the six years of the war, and was at the Nuremberg trials after it. Nothing can ever put to one side what all of that has meant. On the other hand, I have not heard a single convincing argument tonight, or found one in the report, that will ever lead me to support legislation that would change our entire system to bring those alleged war criminals to trial.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that all that was necessary was that legislation that affected British citizens at the time should now be extended to those who became British citizens later. If that were the case, I would still say that it was wrong—absolutely wrong—but, if we read the reports of the House of Lords debates, we see that it is not the case. The most distinguished lawyers in the Lords have said that it is not the case.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), once a very distinguished Home Secretary, is reported as having told the press that it was wrong for the House of Lords to debate this matter before it was debated in the Commons, but I do not understand that point of view. I think that it was a very good thing that the Lords debated it first. At least two Lords Chancellor took part, and they and Lord Campbell made powerful speeches on the legal side. It is difficult for Members of this House to emulate such speeches.
The legal question comes to this: are we to have retrospective, retroactive legislation to deal with this alleged crime? My answer is, "No, in no circumstances." The Conservative party above all has always opposed retrospective legislation. Even when a simple-minded Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to backdate a tax for three months, he was torn to pieces by his hon. Friends. There is no reason whatever for such legislation.
On other questions, such as the means of giving evidence, I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I am not prepared to tolerate such changes to deal with these particular circumstances. If we wanted to deal with them at the time—if we were determined to do so—we should have taken the necessary action then. If we want to deal with similar circumstances in the future, let the Government introduce general legislation now, and we can debate whether it is necessary.
I must warn the Home Secretary, and particularly the Foreign Secretary, that if they take such action they will put themselves in a terrible mess in every quarter of the world. What do they intend to do at this moment about south-east Asia? What will they do about visitors to this country who may then be accused of having committed war crimes or genocide? Such factors must be considered.

Mr. Rupert Allason: But does not the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 allow exactly those prosecutions to take place?

Mr. Heath: Yes, but that does not affect people at the time of their actions. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does."] That is what the motion deals with, and why I am so strongly opposed to it. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) shakes his head; he may have an opportunity to speak later. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, who is chairman of the all-party committee, says that no pressure has been exerted, but there has been enormous pressure, and it has all come from California. We know all about that; there is no point in trying to avoid it. The question is, do we accept the arguments or not? As far as I am concerned, we do not.
It has been said that Britain's name will he stained unless it takes this action. I can think of nothing further from the truth. We took the lead in the Nuremberg trials: Lord Shawcross made the opening and concluding speeches, but it was Sir David Maxwell Fyfe who fought the case the whole way through. Both, however, performed a noble function. We have no reason to think that our name is stained. The Nuremberg trials were controversial at the time, but they dealt with the major people involved in the atrocities of which we know so well.
As for the practicalities, the argument can be raised to a very high level: that this is a question of morality. Of course it is a question of morality, but there is also a practical aspect which would have to be considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General. Not for one moment, however, am I prepared to give that power to them. They would have to consider whether the defence would have a proper opportunity to defend the people who may be left to face these charges. How would the defence produce witnesses and counter letters or documents that the report recommends should be brought before the court? The defence would have no opportunity to deal with such matters.
Another practical point that was referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is that, if it came to a prosecution, why should people who have been living here peaceably for 45 years have to go through all that? It is not a simple question. I am greatly worried about British justice. Look at the time it is taking in the Guinness case. It will be years before that case comes to court. That is not British justice. People who may be proved to be innocent are unable to earn a living; they have no social life; they cannot do anything, because British so-called justice is dragging on year after year before their case even comes to court.
The report concludes that in the case of only three people is there a reasonable chance of conviction. I am told that only one of the three would now be able to come before the courts. According to the report, there would have to be much more investigation of the cases against the other 46 people, which would take many more years. The report concludes that there is no point in doing anything about the rest. From a practical point of view, therefore, I do not believe that anything can be done.
If the Government introduced a Bill, Parliament would be asked to consider legislation whose effect would be retrospective and retroactive for nearly half a century. Certain means, such as television, are not used in our courts and ought not to be employed in cases of this kind. The defence would be unable to establish what it would want to establish in defending its clients. As the years went by, the public would say, "Why are we doing this to these people?" Those of us who survived six years of war feel that as strongly as anybody. We fought it out. Then we had the Nuremberg trials and disposed of them. We are now moving into a better and, we hope, a more peaceful and much wider Europe. That has always been our ambition. This is not the time to pass legislation of this kind.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The difficulty of holding trials under legislation such as that proposed by Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers is undoubted. The difficulty of bringing cases to the point at which prosecutions could be proved by the prosecuting authorities is also undoubted. We need consider only the evidence of the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiries, carried out over a period of 15 months, to have some idea of the time involved. There were 301 allegations to be investigated. After sifting, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has just pointed out, there was only one case left in which the evidence is such as to be likely to lead to a conviction.
The difficulty of proceeding with investigations might not be the clinching consideration if all the moral arguments for holding the trials pointed in the same direction. However, no hon. Member would make that claim. I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that the is one of the most difficult matters that we have had to consider during our time as Members of Parliament. I have reached a broadly similar conclusion, though with one important difference.
The Home Secretary was somewhat disingenous when he suggested that the matter was being addressed by

Parliament without there being any history of decision making. No formal decision not to legislate along these lines has been taken, but in 1948 and 1949 the question of what to do with those whom it was apprehended were in our midst was squarely addressed by Parliament. It was not suggested then that the law should be amended, although it would have been more understandable if such a suggestion had been made at that time. It was much closer in time to the offences that were in everyone's mind. However, Parliament considered whether the screening of the 130,000 immigrants from occupied Europe should continue and whether there should be a positive response to any applications for extradition. The firm decision was taken by Ernest Bevin and Clement Attlee that that process would cease. The decision was taken against the background of what had happened to the Yugoslays and the Ukrainians about whom there were still serious doubts. The only criticism in Parliament at that time was that the Government's decision had been taken too late and that the time for continuing the scrutiny process and pursuing war criminals had gone.
The matter was again considered in 1957 when the Geneva Conventions Bill was before the House and in 1969 when the Genocide Bill was before the House. On neither occasion was Parliament minded to change the law in the manner that is recommended in the report. I find it hard to understand how, after the passage of two decades, the case for changing the law in the manner recommended by the report has been strengthened.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does my hon. Friend recall the suggestion in the Hetherington report that throughout that period it was not believed that war criminals had gained access to, or were resident in, this country?

Mr. Maclennan: I cannot accept that that is the position. Lord Mayhew made it plain in another place that it was clearly in the Government's mind in 1948 and 1949, when the decision was taken to which I have referred, that among the 130,000 immigrants living in this country there were people who were guilty of very grave crimes. However, the decision was taken not to pursue them for the reasons that I have given.
The sensitivity of those hon. Members who have spoken against the retrospective changes in the jurisdiction of the criminal courts, for example, distinguished Law Lords such as Lord Wilberforce, is not misplaced. We should be seeking to strengthen the forces of justice, and we must ask whether that will be achieved by a retrospective change. In many countries the constitution would rule out that sort of change. It is ruled out under the United States constitution, and that is why the United States has chosen an alternative route—stripping people of their citizenship and extraditing them.

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Maclennan: That is also ruled out under the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Maclennan: I shall follow the example of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and will not give way because this is a short debate.
The second area of retrospective change that is proposed is also extremely difficult to accept. The right


hon. Member for Sparkbrook spoke at some length about the proposed changes in the rules of evidence, which would make it more likely that prosecution would be secured and conviction obtained. I agree with everything that he said on that subject, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat his arguments. It is not tolerable for us to amend the law to bring about the conviction of named individuals. The advantages of the defence should weigh as heavily in the balance as the advantages of the prosecution.
I detected too great a preoccupation in the Hetherington—Chalmers report with the possibility that the prosecution would be successful, as did the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. Sufficient attention was not paid to the rights of defendants to face witnesses who are giving evidence against them, and that is a fundamental principle of our criminal law. The report was too casual in its support of some of the changes in the laws of evidence, although, no doubt, changes would be necessary in those laws in cases which depend heavily upon the recollections of people some 45 to 50 years after the event, living thousands of miles away, in completely different circumstances.
I base my opposition to the proposals made in the report not solely on considerations of legal propriety, but on considerations of the public reaction to such trials. As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, it is right that the main justification, if any exists, for bringing about such trials would be as an expression of our unabated revulsion to the horrors of the events with which those people named were associated. The justification would be to show that there has been no falling-off in the determination of the British people to end such horrors, and to prevent their recurrence.
There is a serious risk that the cases considered by Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers might create a backlash against the whole process. Public opinion in countries that have conducted such trials recently has been divided. The reaction has not always been one of strengthened revulsion to the offences, and I am thinking, in particular, of the Barbie and Demjanjuk cases in Israel. Public opinion may question whether it was right to have conducted such trials. Many people's sympathies might end up in the wrong place, and we should avoid that at all costs.
The report by Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers was serious, and it was right that it should have been commissioned. However, the Home Secretary should listen to the views of some of his right hon. colleagues, including the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, who expressed serious reservations about the attack on our system of justice if the recommendations are carried out. I shall vote against the report, and against the motion.

Mr. John Wheeler: I intend to be brief as there is no need for repetition. I welcome and support the words used by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), to introduce the motion. I also welcome and support the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
The motion invites the House to vote, not to create a retrospective offence, but to recognise that the offences of mass murder and manslaughter are contrary to the

criminal law in all civilised nations, contrary to international law, and were unlawful at the time that the offences were committed.
The House is merely being invited to agree the principle that jurisdiction should apply to persons who may be resident in the United Kingdom today. That is the cardinal issue that the House must dwell upon.
In the House this afternoon, and in another place, we have considered whether it is right to prosecute people who committed crimes 50 or more years ago. That is what may happen if the law is amended. We have contemplated that in the light of the decision made in the late 1940s not to continue to seek out persons who may have committed those serious crimes.
Circumstances have changed. Information of such a compelling kind was presented to the public domain in Britain, in October 1986, that the decision of 1948, or whenever, on whether to proceed to look for those people who have committed awful crimes cannot possibly be glossed over. That is not a luxury that we can afford to entertain now.
Allegations of such a grave nature have been made that the judicial system, and our concept of justice, would be impaired if we did not give the normal process of the criminal justice system the opportunity to contemplate the allegations in a court of law by changing the rules.
Those are the two issues that the House must decide upon when we vote on the motion. We do not have to contemplate what procedural consequences might arise if the House were to approve the principle of changing the laws to permit that jurisdiction. That is for another time, and it may also be decided through the normal process of examining a case when those people are under investigation.
I said that I would be brief, and I do not intend to be repetitious. Other hon. Members will express their points of view, but I am in favour of voting for the motion.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I take the opposite view from that expressed by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) but nevertheless respect greatly and deeply the views of him and his colleagues.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that he would vote in favour of the motion to express his horror at the terrible events that the House is discussing. I shall vote against the motion to express my horror at the terrible events that the House is discussing.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting Berlin. Anyone who has travelled there and seen, standing by the side of the avenue up to the Reichstag, the wagons that were used to collect people to take them to the gas chambers left out to rust as a constant reminder of the horror of those events, and anyone who has visited the building between the Reichstag and the airport, where thousands were put to death walking through dark curtains, not knowing which step would be their last, cannot fail to have feeling for those who suffered in the holocaust.
I have no answers for some of the questions that people will ask me. When I made my views known after the previous Home Secretary made a statement, I received letters—not many, perhaps five or six—all of them courteous and complaining about what I said. They asked


how I would feel if the victim had been my mother or father, grandmother or grandfather, sister or brother. I cannot answer that question, and would not attempt to. Such considerations do not bring me to this debate. What brings me is the Hetherington—Chalmers report and how I can pay my respects and best honour the memory of those who were put to death in those terrible times. I can only speak personally.
Much has been said about the retrospective nature of what is suggested in the Hetherington report. I do not intend to dwell on that subject for the simple reason that I am not a lawyer, but I have always had serious reservations and the strongest doubts about the introduction of retrospective legislation. I well remember the time when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was in office, and the House was forced to introduce retrospective legislation to protect and cover the actions of our soldiers policing Northern Ireland. The debate went on and on. The House argued about whether it should introduce such restrospective legislation. I have always had serious reservations about it.
The Hetherington—Chalmers report has compromised any Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales and any Lord Advocate for Scotland, who would have to consider submissions put before them. Thomas Hetherington is on record as saying that he is absolutely convinced that there is sufficient evidence on which to mount a prosecution in respect of three people. He may be convinced. He is entitled to be as he has expert knowledge. But, with great respect to him, he will not decide whether a prosecution should be mounted. If that day ever comes, and the documents are presented, he will not be the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I ask the House to consider what will happen if the DPP of the day says, "In my opinion, there is insufficient evidence on which to proceed." If anybody has any doubt about what might happen, I shall try to explain what I envisage. There would be an unholy public row, with both sides of the argument lined up against each other. One side will say, "How is it that an experienced former DPP can say that there is sufficient evidence and the present holder of the office can say there is not?" Secondly, what would happen if that hurdle were crossed and the DPP said that there was sufficient evidence on which to mount a prosecution but the court returned a verdict of "Not guilty"?

Mr. Greville Janner: So be it.

Mr. Ewing: I am not being unkind to my hon. and learned Friend or anyone else, but I simply do not believe, bearing in mind the hype that has been generated on the issue, that a "Not guilty" verdict would be accepted with the words "So be it."

Mr. Janner: It happens all the time.

Mr. Ewing: It would not happen in this case. That is my view, and I am expressing it.
We are building up the hopes of relatives of people who were slaughtered in the holocaust, only to let them down. I am not certain that that is the best way in which to honour the memory of people who were slaughtered during those terrible events. I believe in all sincerity that

that would do tremendous damage to the legal system and to the immediate families of those who were killed. I accept, however, that those families might not agree.
When I think how best I can honour the memory of those who were slaughtered, I come firmly to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served by staging show trials, for without a shadow of a doubt that is what they would be. I come firmly to the conclusion that nothing should be said or done that would disturb the sleep of those who were slaughtered.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) is well known for his championship of many good causes, but on this occasion I believe that he has lent his name and his prestige to the pursuit of a cruel vendetta which he will come to regret.
The proposition before us, when properly understood, offends against all the basic instincts of decent British people. It asks us to set aside the normal rules of British justice and so to change the law that three old men whose identities have already been revealed in the popular press may be branded as vile murderers without having the faintest chance of defending themselves. Nothing comparable to this motion has come before a British Parliament since the Acts of Attainder which deeply disfigured our criminal justice system in the 16th and 17th centuries.
It is good to know that last week at least the other place decisively rejected the principle behind this motion. It is ill conceived. If it were passed, the practical steps needed to implement it would make a fair trial quite impossible.
The principle at stake is that we should change our law to permit the prosecution of three individuals for acts performed long ago and far away. That is abhorrent at a time when peace and reconciliation are needed rather than revenge.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way on the point of law raised in their Lordships' House? They were not against it; they passed the motion.

Mr. Stanbrook: No good can come from reviving the stories of the wicked atrocities of the past. Why should we change the law retrospectively—every good lawyer believes that it is restrospective legislation—for such a narrow purpose? Why not pursue the perpetrators of the other heinous crimes committed during and since the war? Are not the British ashamed of sending back the Cossacks and the Chetniks to their certain deaths? What about the Americans who are alleged to have starved their German prisoners of war to death? What about the hideous crimes committed in Palestine and elsewhere in the middle east and in Cambodia?
If it is said that the malefactors in those cases have not been identified or that they do not come within our jurisdiction, what about the leaders of modern Israel, some of whom were responsible for the cold-blooded massacre of British subjects and are now received with warmth and hospitality when they come to Britain? We do not need to change the law to prosecute them. Why should they escape retribution? My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point apparently does not understand that it is not because we are soft or because we do not hate criminals, but


because the British instinct is and always has been to let the dead bury their dead and after the passage of time to forgive and even to try to forget such things, knowing with the wisdom that we have acquired in our long history that it is better for everyone that we should do so.
Rabbi Blue said recently in a BBC radio programme that there is something of the Nazi in all of us—[interruption.] We are all guilty of man's inhumanity to man.
Like everyone else, I am revolted by the knowledge of what the Nazis did to the Jewish and other communities during the war, and I do not seek to condone, excuse or deny it. Those horrors arouse deep emotions, some of which were shown by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point, but emotions are a bad foundation for justice. In the other place last week, as reported in the House of Lords Hansard at column 615, the Chief Rabbi said that the Jewish faith "abhors vengeance" and I withdraw anything that I may have said to the contrary in the context of this debate.
According to St. Paul, the Lord said:
Vengeance is mine; I will repay.
It is not for us endlessly to pursue those who may have avoided earthly retribution for their misdeeds, and certainly not in a retrospective and selective way.
Even if I were not already convinced that it is wrong in principle for us to change the law, as a lawyer I would condemn the idea because in practice it means committing a far greater injustice than allowing suspected criminals to go unprosecuted. Despite the hard knocks that it has suffered recently, British justice has always been respected and admired. The motion asks us to set aside its most important feature—the right to a fair trial. It is not simply a matter of extending the territorial jurisdiction of the court and making British citizens liable for their misdeeds before they gain citizenship. There is something to be said for such extension, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (M r. Hattersley) about that. However, it is objectionable that such steps should be taken specifically for three individuals and their crimes.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Stanbrook: I am sorry but we do not have time.
Although British law does not forbid trials for offences committed long ago, such trials are seldom held because the evidence is sparse, the witnesses unreliable and their memories faded. When identification is an issue, as it probably would be in these cases, all lawyers know that a witness's recollection dims after only a few weeks and is totally unreliable after a few years.
Of course, one can always put the suspect in the dock and ask a witness to identify him then and there as is done in show trials. I hope that it will never come to that in Britain. That is why my right hon. Friend is wrong to gloss over the substantial changes in the law of evidence and procedure which Hetherington says will be needed if those men come to trial.
His assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence is based upon the assumption that those changes will be made. There would be no committal proceedings. That is possible but most unusual. It would mean that the prosecution would not need to prove even a prima facie case before the matter went before a court. Evidence would be admitted in writing by statements made in Russia, and would include statements made by dead

people. There would be no chance to cross-examine witnesses at the trial, no check on the circumstances in which a statement was made, and no indication as to any inducement or intimidation before the statement was made. Documentary evidence would be admitted without the need for the maker or the authenticator to attend the court. All those changes would be retrospective and directed towards those particular cases.
The Hetherington report says that legal aid will be available, but does anyone imagine that a defendant or his representative would be able to travel freely arid unmolested in Soviet Russia to gather evidence and to find witnesses to support his case?

Mr. Allason: They have already.

Mr. Stanbrook: That is not so. Russia replied to a request made by one of them that it is a matter for the British Government, and of course the British Government are in no position to assist.
The Hetherington inquiry took 16 months and cost £500,000. It interviewed hundreds of witnesses by courtesy of the KGB. Will the defendants be allowed equivalent time and facilities? Of course they will not. The motion asks us to perpetrate a travesty of justice. I call upon the House to reject it.

Mr. Greville Janner: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) will not be surprised to hear that I found little to agree with in his speech and that I will not follow him down the paths of hyperbole.
I should like to tell the House a little of my own experience. After the war, I was a soldier with the British Army of the Rhine and served as a war crimes investigator. Indeed, I think that I am the only Member of either House who did so. Our search section was looking for 10,000 people, and we hoped to find them and the evidence to bring them to justice. At the time, we saw no reason why such people should not be brought to justice. That was our job.
There was evidence against those people of mass murder in concentration camps, of the mass killing of civilians and of the shooting of British prisoners of war who had escaped from Stalag Luft 3. They were murderers. I am not surprised to see the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) laughing; I can see nothing laughable in this. It is one of the most serious and important matters that has come before the House, and I see nothing to laugh about in it. We can disagree courteously, as I do with my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), but neither of us regards this as a laughing matter.
In August 1948, I was called in by my commanding officer and told that the war crimes group was being packed up. I asked why, and he said, "I do not know. I can only suspect that they do not care any more, provided that these people are anti-Soviet." It is only now that we have the evidence and only now that the secret document has been revealed, showing that a Government—alas, a Labour Government—sent a note to its allies stating:
In view of future political developments in Germany…we are convinced that it is now necessary to dispose of the past as soon as possible.
We do not take that view in respect of any other murder; we do not take the view that old age is an excuse


for being evil; and we do not take the view that, because time has passed, murders do not count. There is no limit in our law for prosecuting a murder charge.
I could not understand why the war crimes group was being packed in when it had such evidence of murder committed by 10,000 people. It was murder, yes, of Jews, but also of Poles, Russians, trade unionists, gipsies, gays, people with whom they did not agree and mentally and physically handicapped people. We are talking not about something to laugh at but about murder.

Mr. Gorst: rose—

Mr. Janner: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done in this cause.

Mr. Gorst: The case is much worse than the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting. In 1948 at least 20,000 cases merited prosecution. If one needs evidence for that, it comes from Lord Mayhew in another place.

Mr. Janner: Lord Mayhew unfortunately was a member of that Labour Government, and the speech that he made did not surprise me. I was talking about a list of 10,000 people for whom we were searching but had not found. Others were found, but the prosecution of all of them was aborted.
Some of the people for whom we were looking were my age and some were elderly, but the fact that they were elderly did not stop us prosecuting them if they were killers. Some of the people for whom we were looking were younger than some of us here, but their age was never regarded as an excuse for not bringing them to justice.
Whenever the public are upset about an issue, there is a possibility of show trials. But we still have trials for multiple rapes and for murder. We still risk the excesses of the press; we do not say, "People will be emotionally upset and interested, so we will not try suspects." That has always struck me as the worst argument. It was used at the Nuremberg trials. We did not believe it then, and I do not accept it now.
What about evidence? As a Queen's Counsel, I was bothered by an interesting evidential point. I talked to Kitty Hart, who is a survivor of Auschwitz and whose letter is published in The Independent today. She told me that last year she gave evidence at a war crimes trial in Germany. It has been said that we should not take action because of the interests of the new Europe, but West Germany, East Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands have all taken action against war criminals; Britain is the only European country that has not done so. Kitty Hart told me that she could not forget the face or actions of somebody who had tortured her for a year. I spoke to another survivor. She said, "I forget the people whom I met yesterday, but I will not forget the face of the man who snatched my baby from me and threw her into a pit."
I listened to the debate in the other place and was appalled to hear Lord after Lord say that old men forget. They may forget selectively, but the people who suffered do not forget.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East, who is a very good friend, said that he cannot talk for those who lost families. I cannot talk for the people who died—

nobody can do that—but if they had survived I wonder what they would have thought of some of the speeches that we have heard. Half my family were rounded up by the sort of people we have been speaking about today—local people. My relatives were locked in a synagogue that was set on fire and they died. I do not want revenge, only justice. I do not see why people should not be prosecuted because some of my family were killed, and I would believe the same if it was anyone else's family.
I do not understand why, if there is sufficient evidence, people should not stand trial. It is not for the House to decide whether there is sufficient evidence—that is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is not for the House to decide whether a person is fit to stand trial—that is a matter for the court. I ask that these people be given decent justice, which they certainly did not accord anyone else. The law should make that possible, and whether anyone is prosecuted is secondary. What matters is that the House should not say, "We do not care", which is how it would be taken. I am sure that many good and honourable Members who have spoken against the motion care, but that is not the way that other people will feel about them.
If we are to have justice, it must manifestly be seen to be done. I could not disagree more with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who spoke of a shattering constitutional change. As a lawyer, I can recognise a shattering constitutional change, and this certainly is not one. A British citizen who kills someone abroad is liable to prosecution, and has been for many years. He may be prosecuted in our courts for committing an offence against a foreigner. It is only people who were not British citizens at the time who cannot be prosecuted. I have never understood why people who came to Britain and assumed the vast privilege of British citizenship should escape the duties, responsibilities and liability to criminal offences that go with it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) talked about complex changes in evidence, which will have to be discussed in Committee, but we can make them. Earlier, the case of the Cossacks was mentioned. In that case, statements of evidence were read out, for the defence, from people who were dead. There is nothing new about statements from people who have since died. What matters is to get on and to recognise that this is a deeply important issue.
Some of my good friends have said to me, "Do not do this because"—as the Bishop of St. Albans put it in plain terms—"it will create anti-Semitism." Earlier, I think that the Home Secretary said that it might "rekindle old feelings". I do not believe that prosecuting people for killing Jews or anyone else creates anti-Semitism—anti-Semites create anti-Semitism—and I assure the House that that argument is not accepted by people in the Jewish community, whether or not they lost relatives in the holocaust.
I ask that where there is powerful evidence of personal involvement in mass murders—the independent commissioners have said that there is against three people and perhaps another 48—we should, as a House, say: "Let us have the option to prosecute them as we would a British citizen."

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The real question is surely whether the United Kingdom should continue to be a safe haven for any monsters who have perpetrated unspeakable atrocities resulting in death. It comes as a shock to learn that at present we are such a haven because there is a defect in our machinery of justice which, had we known about it years ago, we would surely have corrected. The motion calls upon the House to correct that gap in our machinery —that is all it calls upon the House to do. It does not call upon the House to authorise any prosecution against any named suspect. That will be for the Director of Public Prosecutions, not for us.
It follows that it is not an issue, for the purpose of the motion, whether the suspects are too old or too young, whether the evidence is strong or weak, or whether identification is credible. In some cases, there will be no issue of identification or even whether video recordings or interviews or the statements of dead witnesses or other evidential matters should be adopted.
Some of the suggested changes in the Hetherington report have already been introduced by the House for the very purpose of securing convictions of the guilty. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that he did not agree that a particular category of offender should be pursued. But that is exactly what we did when we introduced the videoing of witnesses for child abuse and rape cases. Those matters are not for us to decide today but will be matters of detail for the Bill. The question of there being sufficient evidence under any rules of evidence, whether we decide to change anything or not, will he purely a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. His will be the difficult task, but ours is relatively easy.
We have had paraded before us a number of arguments against this motion. Some say that time has passed and that it would be cruel to adopt such a procedure. But it is not a principle of British law not to prosecute because time has passed. If the Guildford Four should ever be found, will we say, "What a shame—we must not prosecute them because that offence was committed 15, 20 or 25 years ago"? Retribution is an issue that may arise after conviction. It cannot arise before or even during the trial.

Mr. Heath: The case of the Guildford Four is now frequently quoted. The legislation governing what happened in Guildford was in existence then. The difference in this issue is that the legislation was not in existence. People have been living here for 50 years without that legislation. If there were legislation, today's debate would not be necessary and nor would the proposal. It is an entirely false argument to cite the Guildford Four.

Mr. Lawrence: My right hon. Friend selects only part of the argument. But we have all heard it. We have heard hon. Members saying that it would be too cruel because it happened too long ago. That is the point which is being made and I am dealing with that.
It can hardly be a change of policy if British citizens can be tried for those atrocities, or if prosecutions can still be brought under royal warrant—but that is not a desirable way of proceeding. It can hardly be a change of policy since we have already changed the law to ensure that genocide offences in similar circumstances can be

prosecuted after 1967. As for changing procedure, we do that all the time with nearly every criminal justice Act that we pass.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook says that he is against hurrying through the House legislation to convict known individuals. It would be no more "hurrying" to take a Bill through the House as a result of this motion than it is hurrying any Bill when we take it through the House in the course of a new Session of Parliament. This would be a short Bill.
There may be some known individuals, but there are many who are as yet unknown because they have not been investigated. Those who read the report will see that one matter which is taken into consideration is that we should put into position a structure which might be available for those who are not yet known.
More general legislation may be preferable to this, but is that any reason why we should not legislate now? This legislation would at least follow an independent report which has been thoroughly prepared and thoroughly thought out.
There is the alternative of extradition and deportation, but that would hardly be as fair in many circumstances. We cannot try people now before we deport them because we have changed the law so that there is no need to prove a prima facie case before they are taken back to a country that might not give them a fair trial. Many hon. Members would not extradite people back to a country where there was capital punishment.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that there is only one case left. There are a large number yet to be investigated, but even if there were only one case left we would still have done the right thing by closing the doors to Nazi war criminals and given a signal to the rest of the world that we are not out on a limb in not caring.
I heard the moving speech by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing). He said that there would be no convictions anyway and that we would be building up false hopes. That would be for a jury to decide, as it is with all serious criminal justice in this country. As for hope, surely the strongest hope must be that the crimes perpetrated in Nazi times shall never be forgotten. Is it not necessary from time to time to remind the new generation who simply cannot believe that such horrors took place? Is it a terrible thing if a jury says, "Not guilty", but in the course of doing so the world is reminded just how despicable man can be to man?
Finally, and perhaps most strongly, the argument has been put repeatedly that we should remain a safe haven because of a technical argument: that the change would be retrospective legislation. I have heard that argument in the House and in the other place. What is so objectionable about retrospective legislation? It is that someone should not be punished for an act which he did not think was wrong or illegal at the time. But that is not the case here. Mass murder cannot possibly have been right or legal whenever it was perpetrated. It was an offence to humanity and it is a cruel insult to the memory of the innocent who were slaughtered not to proceed against their slaughterers because of some gap in the machinery of the law which we recognise, and which we would fill were it not for some magic about the phrase "retrospective legislation". There is no magic about it. If an injustice is not done by changing our laws so that those who knew that they were


committing acts of inhumanity can be prosecuted and brought to justice, there is nothing wrong with retrospective legislation.
The central question is whether Britain should remain a safe haven for monsters. The immediate question today is: do we just wring our hands at the horrors of those deeds and the sickening nature of their perpetrators, or do we take action? The motion is about asking the House to authorise the taking of action by bringing forward a Bill. I ask all hon. Members to support the motion.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The passage of time causes many men and women who have experienced what happens in war to turn that experience in our minds in such a manner that in that timescale the pursuit of truth sometimes becomes elusive. What is right when one is a young man or woman and what is right when one is much older are matters that are always in contest. Sometimes in our society we have a natural dependence on case law, criminal law, international law and the views of those who are trained in the professions to interpret those laws for us.
In this House today and in the other place last week, we have had a fulsomeness of legal opinion. The fascinating point about that is that it has been divided. Those of us who are lay people have to interpret what we have heard from those legal personages in such a manner as to act as a jury. Before we do that, we must rid our minds of what we felt when we were young men or women and behave with the caution and care of cultivated minds at the ages that we have achieved. Although the ages of hon. Members vary, there is an abundance of experience to help us.
In this testing of a jury concept, there cannot be any sense of vengeance or of bitterness. I recall as a young officer on my first visit to Belsen the stench of the place, which does not leave one's nostrils even with the passage of time. The tears never seem to stop flowing whether at moments such as this or when we visit other places such as our war graves on the continent and elsewhere. It is important, therefore, that the emotions and feelings be put on one side—although not too far away from us—so that we can apply our mental abilities and experiences to make sound judgments.
One point is certain. Hon. Members talk about the difficulties of retrospective legislation and, although both sides of the argument are respected, there must be an overriding consideration, which is international practice and custom in the rules of law and the customs of war. Canada, America and Australia can see that where those rules and customs of war have been breached in the form of established war crimes, they can put into their national legislation what has already been established in international jurisprudence.
According to Hetherington and Chalmers, it is quite clear that we are not proposing retrospective legislation, for we are not seeking to create an offence that did not take place at the time. It is clear that the report is saying that no one shall be held to be guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time it was committed. The report states:
Article 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 states"—

that is, the provision that I have described—
'The Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person or any act or omission which, at the time it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.'
On page 63 of the report, the authors write:
Legal opinion at the time"—
that refers to a debate in the House of Lords in 1942—
seems to have been that jurisdiction over violations of the laws and customs of war existed, and that there was a need to legislate only to empower the domestic courts to utilise the jurisdiction which was already available under international law.
It seems abundantly clear that we are seeking here to do what should have been done many years ago and merely to establish in our minds, as members of an international community, the provisions of international jurisprudence. That cannot be difficult for lawyers to understand.
That brings us back to the next question: should we proceed in view of the passage of time? The answer to that is simple. There is no case in the development of our law where a timescale has been placed on any offence or any state of criminality. Not so very long ago, someone was brought to court having committed murder 27 years before. If that was done for one man, what on earth are we arguing about when we are dealing with people about whom there is an abundance of evidence that they mutilated thousands of people? The conscience of the House must not be affected by the interpretation of legalities in this small Chamber, but it must show a responsiveness to what the whole nation cries out for.
If such a crime is an offence in West Germany, East Germany and other Common Market countries, as hon. Members have described today, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is wholly wrong in suggesting that if we pursue this course we are creating some difficulty for the good relationships in the developing Common Market. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is somewhat obsessed by Europe and cannot think clearly about the matter. He can be excused on that ground.
Having dealt with the interpretation of retrospectivity and the point that the timescale has nothing to do with whether an action qualifies as an offence, we must consider the condition—in this case the age—of those whom we seek to bring to court. I tabled a question in the House in 1979 which eventually exposed Sir Anthony Blunt. I was the only hon. Member who, in the debate on 15 November 1979, remembered to express a personal regret that we caught him when he was so old, when he would have to suffer conditions such as the removal of his knighthood and removal from Buckingham palace—and, incidentally, there was the removal of a Bill on the protection of information from the House for reasons that I shall not describe now—and when he would be exposed to the world. I said that I was sorry that there had been a rejection of the law and that certain people in high places had decided to protect him for years. Hon. Members in this House who talk about the law say that the law is often an ass, but if anything has harmed justice, it has been the courts themselves because they so lack a determination to be consistent that the public is now becoming alarmed at their inconsistencies.
The age of those involved is not the business of the House. Our business is to make available legislation so that if in the judgment of others, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, a case should be brought, it can be brought. The DPP is not in a position to decide freely


whether he should bring a case or not. He must make a prosecution possible if he is satisfied that all the evidence and all the circumstances justify it.
Do not let us talk about retribution because, again, that is not the business of the House. The House is here to provide the legislative possibility for others to pursue the just course of action and to bring people to court. The court can then take age into account. If the court retires them, having listened to the case, I could not care less, as long as they have been exposed.
The House should provide the vehicle and leave those in the legal profession who are charged with dealing with prosecutions and defence free to get on with their work. The House should not say that it will provide a law for some but not provide it for others, especially men whose record is such that they should for ever live with the stench of their wickedness, knowing full well that mankind—especially people in this country—feel them to be unclean and believe that they should not have been given citizenship in the first place.

Sir John Stokes: This is an important debate, and although I have always been opposed to the televising of our proceedings, I might make an exception in this case because this is one of the non-party occasions when the House is always at its best and when one feels what a privilege it is to be here.
The subject that we are discussing is one that comes down to human judgment. We are all called upon to exercise our general judgment, without necessarily being lawyers. It is, of course, a subject charged with emotion, particularly for those of Jewish background, whose memories must be most painful.
Someone of my age is bound to look back on those terrible times—I still remember them extremely clearly. I served throughout the war and was wounded, although the amount of time that I actually spent fighting the enemy was quite short. I felt then no animosity towards the German people; indeed, I admired the German army, as I still admire it. I had no contact with the Japanese, although if I had, my feelings would have been quite different.
When I first heard of the appalling massacres by the Germans, I was incredulous. Much later, we heard of the Russian massacres of Poles. At the time, I was inclined to welcome the prospect of the war crimes trials, although even then I wondered whether soldiers were the right people to sit in the seat of judgment. When the trials were held, I was quite glad, but I did not rejoice. Looking back on it, I do not entirely like the idea of the victors—sometimes the victorious generals—trying the conquered generals, even though in some cases their crimes were utterly horrific.
The report is well written and presented but sometimes, I think, clever men can make mistakes and I believe that, in this case, two able, distinguished and experienced lawyers have made a mistake in their final judgment. At a great moment in English history, the barons said—in Latin, although I shall spare the House the Latin:
We do not wish to change the laws of England.
That remains the basis of my case.
It is an important matter. To put many great wrongs right, should we commit another wrong? In my view, to change the laws of England would be wrong.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Or Scotland.

Sir John Stokes: Or Scotland.
Of course, I should hate this country to be considered a haven for war criminals. I should hate to feel that those guilty of such appalling crimes had escaped, but when we come down to practicalities, we find that three old men and possibly more may be involved and one of those three old men is ill. Is it really desirable or practicable to change the laws of England and possibly Scotland to try these old men who have lived here peaceably for so many years? Above all, is it right to change fundamentally the laws of evidence of which we are so proud and on which British justice is based?
Is there any public demand for such a change? I have not had a single letter about the matter since the war, and I represent 80,000 good British people. The practical difficulties of the trials would be enormous. Witnesses would he hard to find and remembrance of things that happened more than 40 years ago would be difficult.
What would be the point of the trials? Would it be revenge? I hope not, and we are assured not. Should we now bring back, in all its stark horror, what happened so long ago? What good will it do? A few people may feel better but most people will not, I think.
In 1948, we decided to discontinue war crimes trials. Can justice now be done, and, above all, be seen to be done? With all the publicity, would not juries be inclined to be biased? We know that the trials would not deter future awful crimes because we have watched so many being committed since the war, including the recent appalling examples from Cambodia.
I read carefully the account of the debate on the subject in the other place, and I was most impressed. I noted that the weight of opinion was strongly against the trials being held. Whatever people may say, there is an element of retrospection involved. Why are only these men involved and not other war criminals? As has been said elsewhere, the trials will be more of a lottery than a fair trial.
Of course, I realise only too well that the judgment that we have to make is a difficult one. I should not dream of criticising those who take a different view. I believe that we should not institute this long, complicated and involved procedure, which may lead to our overturning the whole basis of English law, to bring to trial a few old men and possibly a few more people. In spite of the frightful crimes that were committed—and we do not know whether the men were guilty of them—I think that in this case mercy should overcome justice, especially given that so many years have elapsed.

Mrs. Llin Golding: Two weeks ago, one of my constituents rang me up and told me, slowly and painfully, "I have never telephoned or spoken to an MP before but I must ring you about the war crimes debate. My family—85 of them—were killed in concentration camps. I am the only member of the family left." Can the House imagine how the fingers of pain have reached out over the years to hold that lady so tightly that she cannot escape living with the horrors of what happened to her family?
In 1945, a parliamentary delegation was sent from this House to Buchenwald. It was less than three weeks after the allies had liberated that camp. The delegation prepared a report to the House. The final paragraph of it states:


In preparing this report, we have endeavoured to write with restraint and objectivity, and to avoid obtruding personal reactions or emotional comments. We would conclude, however, by stating that it is our considered and unanimous opinion, on the evidence available to us, that a policy of steady starvation and inhuman brutality was carried out at Buchenwald for a very long period of time; and that such camps as this mark the lowest point of degradation to which humanity has yet descended. The memory of what we saw and heard at Buchenwald will ineffaceably haunt us for many years.
The report was signed by Earl Stanhope, Lord Addison, Colonel Tom Wickham, Sir Archibald Southby, Mrs. Mavis Tate, Mr. Ness Edwards, Mr. Sydney Silverman, Mr. Graham White, Sir Henry Morris-Jones, and Mr. Tom Driberg. My father was a member of that delegation. His name was Ness Edwards. He was the hon. Member for Caerphilly for 29 years. I remember him telling me about the horrors of what went on in that camp. They are engraved for ever on my mind and heart.
There has been much talk tonight about the passage of time. I was but a child on the day when I opened the door to my father on his return. He stood there, grey and drawn, and said, "Do not touch me. I am covered with lice. Everyone in the camps is covered with lice. We have been deloused many times, but I am still covered with lice." He could not sleep for many weeks, and he had nightmares for many years. It is said that Mrs. Mavis Tate never got over what she saw in the camp, for she died a number of years later.
My father spoke to me and to my brothers and sisters about what he had seen in the camp. He told us of the hanging gibbets. Human beings were put on hooks and hung from under their chins until they died. He told us that the people in charge of the camp rather liked tattoos, and they skinned people and used their skins to make lampshades. They discovered that, when people die, their skin is given to shrinking too quickly, so they tried skinning them alive. My father showed me photographs of piles of bodies on carts. Three weeks later, the allies had not had time to remove them all. He showed me photographs of men in thin clothes, photographs of skeletons, and photographs of men with haunted eyes. I will always remember the look in those men's eyes—the look of utter bewilderment and incomprehension. They had been starved and beaten, yet their spirit was still there.
There comes a point when something must be done. For too long the House has ignored that delegation's report. Tonight, I hope that every hon. Member will pay tribute to our former colleagues for going to that camp on our behalf, for bringing back that report to the House, and for showing the suffering of so many people. I hope that all hon. Members will show their respect for and commitment to doing what every member on that delegation would wish them to do, and that is to support the motion.

Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) spoke with deep emotion about the victims of war crimes. All hon. Members share that emotion. The crimes that we are discussing are among the darkest in the annals of man's inhumanity to man. No unbiased person can doubt either the horror or the scale of the crimes in which 6 million innocent civilians—men, women and children, including

Jews, gipsies, Communists and homosexuals—were herded into the gas chambers of the Third Reich. Hon. Members unanimously acknowledge and condemn those crimes.
I am a founder member of the all-party war crimes group. Together with other members, I joined because I felt a sense of deep outrage at the idea that mass murderers might be living unpunished in our midst. However, I am bound to say that the report of the war crimes inquiry led me to different conclusions from those to which it led its authors.
We must ask whether it is right to reopen this matter now. What would it achieve? If Parliament had wished to address these matters, surely the time to do it was in the late 1940s or early 1950s—not today, half a century later. Most of the witnesses are senile, infirm or dead. What hope would a defendant have of a fair trial according to the tenets of British justice as we know them?
If Parliament were to grant authority to proceed on the course recommended by this masterly but flawed report, the British Government would be required to expend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to scour the Soviet Union for witnesses and for evidence that was favourable to the prosecution. There can be no doubt that the British Government would have the full support of the Soviet Government, but what resources would be available to a defendant?
For instance, what would be the position of a Latvian living in impoverished circumstances in one of our inner-city areas, and who has been in this country for 45 years? At least if he is falsely accused of murder or misidentified by a witness in respect of a murder committed in recent years in this country, he has a chance of finding one or more witnesses who may be able to support an alibi or may be a material witness for the defence. Should that witness prove to be unwilling, he or she may be compelled by subpoena to appear before the court and can be sworn to tell the truth under pain of prosecution for perjury. However, in these war crimes cases a defendant would be deprived of their basic rights accorded by British law.
What of the evidence? The inquiry makes it clear that such prosecutions are likely to enjoy the full co-operation of the Soviet Government. Does anyone doubt that? However, were not the Soviet Government guilty of the mass murder of about 20 million of their own people in the Stalin purges and by deliberately starving to death the kulaks of the Ukraine?
Sir Thomas Hetherington records the inquiry's gratitude to the staff of the state procurator-general's office in Moscow, but hon. Members would do well to recall that the same procurator-general's office brought us the show trials of the Stalin era which condemned tens of thousands of Soviet citizens to the gulag for crimes unknown to Western democracies. In recent years it has consigned many sane men and women to psychiatric establishments, and it has formed part of the apparatus of state terror in the Soviet Union. Is that the same office that is to be Britain's partner in what I can only term an ugly charade?
What of the Soviet archives to which the inquiry refers at paragraph 9.42 and in respect of which the law is to be changed to admit documents without the defence having the opportunity to cross-examine the archivist? The inquiry is understandably coy about this matter, but could it be that it is referring to that organisation, so renowned for its love of justice and truth, the Committee for State


Security, commonly known as the KGB, or its predecessor, the NKVD, which holds the responsibility, among other things, for the massacre in cold blood of 16,000 Allied Polish officers in the forest at Katyn? While on the subject of war crimes, what steps are being taken to bring to justice the perpetrators of that outrage, or do such laws apply only to the losers of world wars?
What guarantees would the Soviet authorities be able to give that the evidence had not been tampered with or even manufactured with a view to striking back or settling old scores against anti-Communist emigré communities in this country who came from the Baltic states, eastern Europe or the Soviet republics? What pressure may have been put on witnesses, including dead witnesses, whose evidence is now to be admitted if the report has its way? I see no prospect under these circumstances of a defendant obtaining a fair trial and therefore I see little likelihood of a British jury feeling able to convict.
To embark on such a mammoth task of restructuring the law retrospectively in more than half a dozen different respects to make answerable to a British court those who are not so answerable today would be to run a serious risk of achieving precisely the opposite result to that desired by those who will vote in the Lobby for such legislation.
The document is a recipe for the establishment in this country of show trials that should have no place in British justice. I shall vote against the proposals, not because I believe that the guilty should not be punished, but because I doubt the possibility of a fair trial and believe that the likelihood of acquittal would be high.
At paragraph 9.18 the report declares that
to take no action would taint the United Kingdom with the slur of being a haven for war criminals".
That is a preposterous statement that I utterly refute. No country has a prouder record than Britain in standing up to Nazism or in making possible its ultimate defeat. This is a case where I am prepared to leave justice in the hands of the Almighty—
'Vengeance is mine' saith the Lord.

Mr. Peter Archer: This has been a debate in the best traditions of the House. There is no question over the sincerity of any hon. Member who has taken part. There have been some moving contributions and there is no complaint about any of the anxieties that have been expressed.
One thing that has clearly emerged is that this has not been a debate about how best to secure convictions. If the proposed legislation is placed on the statute book, it will fall to the appropriate authorities in each individual case to see whether there is sufficient evidence on which a court can properly he asked to convict, whether the individual concerned is too old or too ill properly to conduct a defence, whether any other factors in the case mitigate against a fair trial and whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute. All those matters would fall to the appropriate authorities. The issue here is whether anyone should have power to direct their minds to those questions or whether the evidence should be swept aside and no one have the power even to consider it.
I add my tribute to those which have already been expressed to Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers. I have heard distinguished lawyers concerned with these matters in other countries say how fortunate we are in the United Kingdom to have members of an inquiry who can

carry out so extensive an investigation, who can so clearly grasp the problems and the arguments, who are so mindful of the requirements of justice and who can put together a report of this quality in the time available. Clearly they were not unmindful of the necessity for a fair trial.
The time available to me is extremely short and I shall have to leave aside a number of points that have been raised in the debate about which I wished to speak. However, I should like to address the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It is true that the inquiry has proposed some amendments to the rules of evidence, not to secure a conviction as my right hon. Friend suggested because that was not the purpose of the recommendations, but to assist the court in arriving at a better assessment of the case. They may well operate in favour of the defence and many of us would like to see some of them taken into our general rules of evidence. There is no time to discuss them all in detail except to say that they are limited and there is not one of them that I would not be prepared to defend. But my right hon. Friend is right that none of them is integral to the central proposal of the inquiry. At the appropriate time, all of them could be voted on separately in Committee or on Report, and the principal proposal would still remain inviolate whatever the fate of specific recommendations.
I turn now to the question of witnesses' memories. Of course, a witness may be mistaken and many of us have had occasion to remind juries of that danger. I have no doubt that it would be eloquently impressed on any jury. However, we must also have in mind the experiences about which the witnesses will be speaking. Are they experiences that the witnesses would be likely to forget? In another place, a number of their Lordships quoted Shakespeare. I believe that Lord Home was the first to say, "Old men forget." That was not a happy quotation for the proposition which he was advancing because the House will remember that Shakespeare put that quotation in to the mouth of Henry V as a prelude to his saying that there are some things which one never forgets. I, too, had the opportunity of speaking to Kitty Hart, who was mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), and who said when she gave evidence in Germany:
If a person has absolute power of life or death over you even for an instant, that face will be etched on your mind for ever.
She was tested and shown photographs of various people taken during the second world war, and she was not wrong on any of them.
Finally, there have been doubts about whether the necessary facilities for a fair trial can be extended to the defence by the Soviet Union. I hope that hon. Members who have doubts about that will read the reports of the deportation hearings under the Holzman Act in the United States. In the case of the United States v. Artishenko, the Soviet authorities made six witnesses available to the defence, although they were asked to do so only on the very day counsel arrived in the Soviet Union. In the case of the United States v. Kowalchuk, the Soviet authorities made witnesses available to the defence whose evidence proved decisive.
It has been suggested that the evidence might be tampered with. I ask the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) to read the reports of Mr. Allan Ryan, the director of the office of special investigations, and of all the


lawyers who have had anything to do with these matters in the United States. The documentary evidence was tested by experts from all the American universities. They expressed themselves satisfied that there was no problem about collecting evidence in the Soviet Union and that the Moscow agreement did not operate otherwise than perfectly properly and fairly.
I do not believe that there is an obstacle, technical or otherwise, to according those accused a fair and proper trial. The only obstacle would be if we did not wish to see justice take its course. It is we who are on trial.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The debate ends in six minutes and I have little time in which to do justice to the many points that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I join with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) in agreeing that this has been an excellent debate.
The House has been the scene of many impassioned debates in recent years—on subjects such as abortion, capital punishment and war crimes—and this debate joins them as one of the highest quality which will be long remembered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) said.
The quality of speeches for and against—on some occasions it was difficult to make out whether they were for or against until the last moment, properly so, in view of the fact that hon. Members were making difficult judgments —has been a tribute to the recognition by hon. Members generally and across party lines of the responsibility that is placed on the shoulders of Government by the need to decide on the right course of action in this most difficult of areas for any Government of any party.
Some points have been raised with which I must deal in the brief time available to me. A number of hon. Members raised the issue of what exactly were the crimes with which we are concerned today. Volume 2, which will never be published, gives the full horror, but an indication of the scale and nature of the crimes is given in paragraphs 2.23 and 2.43 of the report. They give some graphic hint of what the unpublished material contains.
The debate was opened powerfully by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), and I confirm, if they need confirmation, the points he raised about recent changes in the administration of the law concerning extra-territoriality, the taking of evidence by extra-terrestrial means, such as via satellite, and other circumstances, even producing the papers of the deceased, a change made by the Criminal Justice Act 1988—

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Only in England.

Mr. Patten: Yes, as my hon. and learned Friend says, in England. I confirm that all those changes have been made.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Patten: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me if I do not give way.
I also confirm that we have no statute of limitation in this country from the point of view of the law on murder and homicide.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) recommended that we use the special Bill procedure, should the Government choose to take the route of legislation and should such a measure pass through the House, and I guess that any such legislation would have a rocky and turbulent passage if it were introduced. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that his suggestion has been noted and is a matter for the usual channels in the normal way.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), to whose speech I listened carefully, suggested that there should be other options for legislation. The Government have not adopted any one option for future legislation, should they decide to legislate; no option has been ruled out and I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood the Home Secretary, who did not commit the Government to legislating along any particular lines, should the Government decide to legislate at some future time. The Government's mind is not made up, and I have the Home Secretary's authority to say that.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) made the important point that the Director of Public Prosecutions of the day, should legislation be introduced to change the law, might decide not to prosecute on considering the totality of admissible evidence at the time as well as all the other factors that the DPP and the Attorney-General must take into account when considering the public interest.
It would be his duty, or that of the Attorney-General, to make up his own mind, and the argument of the hon. Member for Falkirk, East about raising expectations unnecessarily that something would happen, when people might only be disappointed, should be weighed on both sides of the argument by those deciding whether it would be right to go ahead with legislation. That point, like those opposed to the prospect of legislation, all deserve to be weighed carefully by hon. Members.
Some are clear in their views. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge know exactly what their point of view is on one side of the argument, just as my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) and for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) come down as firmly on the other side of the argument.
There were many others who were less clear about which side of the argument they wished to be, for example, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Falkirk, East.
My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said that he had changed his mind and that we should extend our views to look at such tragedies as we have seen from evidence from Katyn. I agree, and I hope that evidence is brought forward because there is a Polish-Soviet commission at present looking at exactly the evidence that may be turned up over allegations concerning Katyn.
I agree with the Home Secretary over the need to consider legislation, but it will be for the Government to decide, on the basis of views in the other place, in this House and in the Lobby tonight, what course of action to take in the coming months.

It being three hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to the order [8 December].

The House divided: Ayes 348, Noes 123.

Division No. 14]
[7.56 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbett, Robin


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Alexander, Richard
Cousins, Jim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cox, Tom


Allason, Rupert
Critchley, Julian


Allen, Graham
Crowther, Stan


Alton, David
Cryer, Bob


Amess, David
Cummings, John


Anderson, Donald
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arbuthnot, James
Darling, Alistair


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashby, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Day, Stephen


Ashton, Joe
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, David
Dixon, Don


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dobson, Frank


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Douglas, Dick


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Barron, Kevin
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Batiste, Spencer
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Battle, John
Durant, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Eadie, Alexander


Beckett, Margaret
Eastham, Ken


Beggs, Roy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Beith, A. J.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bell, Stuart
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fatchett, Derek


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fearn, Ronald


Bidwell, Sydney
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Blair, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Blunkett, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boateng, Paul
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boswell, Tim
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Flynn, Paul


Boyes, Roland
Fookes, Dame Janet


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bradley, Keith
Forman, Nigel


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Foster, Derek


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Franks, Cecil


Brazier, Julian
Fraser, John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Freeman, Roger


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fyfe, Maria


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gale, Roger


Buchan, Norman
Galloway, George


Buckley, George J.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Burt, Alistair
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Butler, Chris
George, Bruce


Butterfill, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Caborn, Richard
Gill, Christopher


Callaghan, Jim
Glyn, Dr Alan


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, Mrs Llin


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Gordon, Mildred


Cash, William
Gorst, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Graham, Thomas


Chapman, Sydney
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clay, Bob
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clelland, David
Grist, Ian


Cohen, Harry
Grocott, Bruce


Coleman, Donald
Hague, William


Colvin, Michael
Hanley, Jeremy


Conway, Derek
Hannam, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hardy, Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Harris, David





Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayes, Jerry
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Moore, Rt Hon John


Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Rhodri


Henderson, Doug
Morley, Elliot


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hinchliffe, David
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hind, Kenneth
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Holt, Richard
Mullin, Chris


Home Robertson, John
Murphy, Paul


Hood, Jimmy
Neale, Gerrard


Howard, Michael
Nellist, Dave


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howells, Geraint
Norris, Steve


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hoyle, Doug
O'Brien, William


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Ingram, Adam
Parry, Robert


Jack, Michael
Patchett, Terry


Janner, Greville
Patnick, Irvine


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Pike, Peter L.


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Portillo, Michael


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Prescott, John


Kennedy, Charles
Quin, Ms Joyce


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Randall, Stuart


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Redwood, John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Knapman, Roger
Reid, Dr John


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lambie, David
Riddick, Graham


Lamond, James
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Robinson, Geoffrey


Latham, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rogers, Allan


Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, Jeff


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leighton, Ron
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Livingstone, Ken
Salmond, Alex


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheerman, Barry


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shelton, Sir William


McAllion, John
Shersby, Michael


McAvoy, Thomas
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McCartney, Ian
Short, Clare


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Sillars, Jim


McGrady, Eddie
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Skinner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McNamara, Kevin
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Snape, Peter


Mans, Keith
Soley, Clive


Maples, John
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Squire, Robin


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Steen, Anthony


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Meacher, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Michael, Alun
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Straw, Jack


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sumberg, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Summerson, Hugo






Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wareing, Robert N.


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Thorne, Neil
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Thornton, Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Thurnham, Peter
Wilson, Brian


Tracey, Richard
Winnick, David


Tredinnick, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Trippier, David
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Vaz, Keith
Worthington, Tony


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wray, Jimmy


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Yeo, Tim


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wall, Pat
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wallace, James



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walley, Joan
Mr. Martin Flannery and


Ward, John
Mr. Ivan Lawrence.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Churchill, Mr


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Amos, Alan
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cormack, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bellingham, Henry
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dewar, Donald


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Doran, Frank


Body, Sir Richard
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Emery, Sir Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter
Faulds, Andrew


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Forth, Eric


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Goodlad, Alastair


Buck, Sir Antony
Gow, Ian


Budgen, Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chope, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan





Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hayward, Robert
Paice, James


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hordern, Sir Peter
Robertson, George


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rowe, Andrew


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunter, Andrew
Ryder, Richard


Irvine, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knowles, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Lang, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stern, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stokes, Sir John


Lightbown, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lilley, Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maclennan, Robert
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Madel, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Major, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Walters, Sir Dennis


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Warren, Kenneth


Maude, Hon Francis
Whitney, Ray


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Widdecombe, Ann


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Miller, Sir Hal
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Mills, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas


Miscampbell, Norman
Wood, Timothy


Mitchell, Sir David



Monro, Sir Hector
Tellers for the Noes:


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett and


Mudd, David
Mr. Harry Ewing.


Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the report of the War Crimes Inquiry; and endorses the need for legislation to permit the prosecution in this country, for acts of murder and manslaughter or culpable homicide committed as war crimes in Germany, or German-occupied territory, during the Second World War, of people who are now British citizens or resident here.

Private Bills (Procedure)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That
—the Promoters of every Private Bill which originated in this House in the last Session and which is listed in Schedule A to this Order, or which originated in the House of Lords in the last Session and which is listed in Schedule B to this Order may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
—every such Bill which originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
—there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a Declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
—every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office upon the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill was presented;
—every Bill listed in Part I of Schedule A shall, after being so laid on the Table, be deemed to have been read the first, second, and third time, and shall pass;
—every Bill listed in Part II of Schedule A shall, after being so laid on the Table, be deemed to have been read the first and second time and reported from Committee and ordered to lie upon the Table;
—when any Bill originating in the Lords, which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Session and to which this Order relates, is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a Declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session, and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a Declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed—

(i) in the case of the Buckinghamshire County Council Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords], the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords] and the United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [Lords], to have been read the first and second time and committed and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
(ii) in the case of the Nottingham Park Estate Bill [Lords], to have been read the first and second time and committed;
(iii) in the case of the Medway Tunnel Bill [Lords] and the Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [Lords], to have been read the first time and ordered to be read a second time;
(iv) in the case of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [Lords], to have been read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills;

—in respect of all the Bills listed in Schedules A and B to this Order, the various stages deemed to have been taken shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been taken;
—only such Petitions as were presented against any Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which have not been withdrawn shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill with the same title in the present Session;
—in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to Committee of Petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
—in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords to which this Order relates and upon which the Examiners have reported in the last Session that no Standing Order not previously inquired into was applicable thereto, the

Examiners shall, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, be deemed to have made the same report in the present Session;
—no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on any of the Bills to which this Order relates so far as Fees were incurred during the last Session;
—this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution contained in their Message [22nd November] relating to the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill [Lords], the Happisburgh Lighthouse Bill [Lords], the Great Yarmouth Port Authority Bill [Lords], the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords], the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords] and the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [Lords].

Schedule A

Part I

1. City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
2. Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Bill
3. Isle of Wight Bill
4. New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Limited Bill
5. St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill
6. Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill

Part II

1. British Film Institute Southbank Bill
2. British Railways Bill
3. City of London (Various Powers) Bill
4. Redbridge London Borough Council Bill

Schedule B

1. Buckinghamshire County Council Bill [Lords]
2. London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]
3. South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords]
4. United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [Lords]
5. Nottingham Park Estate Bill [Lords]
6. Medway Tunnel Bill [Lords]
7. Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [Lords]
8. Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [Lords]—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I should announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendments.

Mr. Michael Stern: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to seek your protection so far as it is possible for ordinary Back-Benchers to do so, whether they support or oppose the Government. Today will not be the first occasion in recent months when private business, which affects some citizens but not others, has been extended beyond 10 o'clock. It means that those of us who are keen to support the Government in the Lobby on Government business find that the hours of the House are extended by means of a motion, in this case slipped through on Friday with almost no notice. Does the Chair have powers to help us avoid extending the hours of the House even longer than they are already for public business? This morning we sat until 2.17 am, and clearly tonight we shall sit almost as long, if not longer. It is because the hours for private business are being extended. Can we avoid that in the future?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can make two points in answer to the hon. Gentleman. First, the three hours was agreed by the House on Friday. The motion was on the Order Paper and, because business finished early, it could have been debated before 2.30 pm, had the hon. Gentleman wished to do so. Secondly, if he is dissatisfied with the procedure, and I understand his point, his remedy is to put the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure.

Sir Peter Emery: I hope not to detain the House long. One should congratulate the Chairman of Ways and Means on tabling this motion. This is not an easy matter and it needs to be put in proper perspective.
Tonight we are dealing not with a carry-over motion but a resurrection motion. At the end of the previous Session these Bills were lost and consigned to the ash can. Tonight we seek to bring them back to life. The motion is unusual and retrospective, so it must be treated with considerable care.
We should understand the principle behind what is essentially private business. Private legislation enshrines the principle, surely as old as Parliament itself, that an individual, a corporation or a specific body should be able to petition Parliament and the petition should be properly considered. I do not want to go into the reasons behind what happened in the past Session, but no reasonable man on the 28 bus or, perhaps more appropriate to the motion, the light rapid transit system could say that the Bills introduced by local authorities and private companies in the past Session received their reasonable expectation of full discussion and fair treatment to bring them to the statute book. Indeed, the blocking treatment that they received had nothing whatever to do with their merits. The merits of the individual Bills were never considered.
The tactics used, although in order, could not have brought credit to the House. In one instance hon. Members set parliamentary records by forcing votes on the trot for over two and a half hours on purely technical Lords amendments to the International Westminster Bank Bill. Such tactics could be said to bring Parliament into disrepute. At the end of the Session only one Bill had succeeded in obtaining Royal Assent. No one can suggest that that is acceptable or that the Bills received anything like fair treatment. This motion tries to ensure that the past can be corrected, so that these Bills are given a second chance.
That is particularly important when one considers that petitioners have gone to considerable expense in some circumstances to bring their private Bills to Parliament. I shall not mention names. The cost of some was only £10,000 or £20,000, but I know of one instance where the costs rose to over £150,000 and another to over £375,000. It is wrong that people should be put to the same cost all over again to bring their Bills back before Parliament. This resurrection motion has been brought about by a specific and unusual instance which I hope will never recur.
I strongly believe that this must not become a precedent. Members of Parliament have a right, through proper debate and consideration, to defeat Bills and to know that at the end of a Session the Bills may be defeated and dead—

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: On their merits.

Sir Peter Emery: —particularly on their merits. If a Bill falls on its merits in the future, this should not be a precedent to resurrect it. This special motion sets out to correct a problem which the House should correct.

Mr. Hughes: I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman is about to finish. Will he make it clear that, if the motion is passed, each Bill will be resumed at the beginning of this Session at exactly the same stage at which it was previously

buried? That is important because the Bills have reached different stages and hon. Members need to know that nothing has been changed and that the Bills have not advanced without debate.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is quite clear from the motion that the Bills are returned to the state they were in last Session. It is as though we were still in last Session.
It is a credit to the House to be able to show that when things go wrong we can put them right in the most sensible way. I congratulate the Government and the Chairman of Ways and Means on setting out to do that.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I am grateful for the resurrection of the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill. A great deal was at stake in Sheffield and, even at this hour and with the risk of trying the patience of hon. Members, I should like to put on record the anxieties that were quite unnecessarily stirred in Sheffield because of the abuse of the private Bill procedure.
A year ago Sheffield was empowered to proceed with a line to run from my constituency to the northern part of the city and through the centre. However, we required an additional line in connection with the redevelopment of the east end of Sheffield, especially of Meadowhall and adjoining areas. Powers to construct the second line in conjunction with part of the first line were urgently required to enable the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive to provide up-to-date public transport for the world student games in Sheffield in 1991. The executive felt that the second Bill would be passed by the end of last Session and that it would be possible for the executive to proceed with the letting of contracts for work to start next month so that as much of the line as is required for the world student games could be completed and be in operation in 18 months.
A substantial part of the second line would pass along or beside railways of the British Railways Board and part would make use of disused railway. On the promotion of the Bill, the PTE reached agreement with the British Railways Board and with all those who objected to the scheme. We were ready to proceed and were awaiting parliamentary sanction. The cost of the promotion to date is estimated at about £350,000. All that was put at risk by the difficulties experienced and so well described by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery).
I hope that what I have said will make hon. Members pause before they pursue their ends or betray their exasperation, which can be well known, understood and shared, but which must not be expressed at the expense of their colleagues and neighbours. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) may laugh, but this is no laughing matter in Sheffield. That city badly needs regeneration and possibly all that regeneration depends upon the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Barry Field: I apologise for mentioning an hon. Member without following the convention of informing him that I would do so. I see that he is absent from the Chamber. The hon. Member for


Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is reported in the Southern Evening Echo on Thursday 23 November to have said:
The Isle of Wight Bill will go through the House fairly quickly.
I am therefore surprised that the hon. Gentleman has put down to the motion an amendment which seeks to leave out the Isle of Wight Bill. However, I understand that none of the amendments has been selected.
I draw to the attention of the House the recommendations in the report on private Bill procedure which was published in the 1987–88 Session. Conclusion No. 22 says:
The procedure for objecting orally to a Bill should be abolished.
We have allowed television cameras to cover our proceedings and are accountable for all our words and actions in printed form. It is quite wrong that hon. Members are able to object surreptitiously to Bills which represent thousands if not millions of pounds worth of investment by various communities and local authorities. Hon. Members can object from behind a hand or from behind an Order Paper and there is no record of who has objected. People in the Press Gallery are not able to identify objectors and a gent deal of injustice occurs. I have received letters from organisations maligning me, and a national newspaper carried a defamatory article over which, regrettably, I have had to start legal proceedings.
Whatever else emerges from this unfortunate state of affairs, I hope that we will reform that part of the procedure if no other because we do ourselves no service by objecting in such a way. When I objected to Bills after my Bill had been lost on 14 November, I stood in my place so that there could be no doubt about the courage of my convictions and actions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has said, I hope that when the Bills are resurrected they will be debated in the normal way.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does the Leader of the House propose to intervene? There are issues about the Procedure Committee's recommendations which are his responsibility and it would be of assistance to hon. Members if they knew whether the Leader of the House intends to speak.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I was hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, simply to reaffirm what I have told the House already about the way in which we are addressing the recommendations of the Joint Committee. I am not anxious to stand in the way of the speedy consideration of the motion before the House, and I was judging the moment for brief intervention. I am here for a modest purpose.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The House was clogged with business at the end of the last Session, not just because of activity in connection with private Bills but because of the overloading by Government. That led to the Leader of the House having to come here time and again to introduce timetable motions on the Football Spectators Bill, the Companies Bill and the Children Bill. That meant that there was not the time that there would otherwise have been for private

Bills to be debated and the possibility, following Divisions, for Bills to be carried over. That would have been better than the omnibus provision that is before us.
Some of us object to the abuse of the private Bill procedure because we feel that many such Bills could be dealt with by way of planning agreement provisions. That would enable local bodies making representations in connection with Bills to be represented at local inquiries. That would be easier than coming to the House to face what seems to them a highly judicial procedure. In some cases the Government could take over measures and produce them as public Bills. The North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill has caused great consternation and many problems and is exactly in that category because it clearly had the Government's unofficial backing.
We seem to be resurrecting Bills by some procedural sleight of hand and while it might be legitimate, it is procedurally uncomfortable. We are debating a Lazarus resolution in order to return from the dead measures For which time could not be found in a parliamentary Session. There are reasons for Parliament feeling that measures should go through within a Session unless there are some special arguments that need to be considered and for which a carry-over motion is necessary.
I am not sure how many times motions such as this have been resorted to in an attempt to resurrect whole wads of Bills. Reasonable, decent and necessary though many such measures are, they could be dealt with by other means: in a democracy, after all, we need to be as careful about the procedures in which we engage as we are about the substantive issues that we discuss.
There is a case for arguing that, when a Bill is objected to, the name of the hon. Member who objects should be recorded in Hansard. I should not mind that, although my name would feature sometimes. It would be particularly useful on Fridays, when wads of private Members' Bills are defeated by a lone voice, sometimes that of a Government Whip. Thus a Member of Parliament whose identity may be obscure is enabled to bury a group of measures, with no possibility of a motion such as this to bring them back from the dead—although it is sometimes possible for us to go behind the Chair and keep Bills alive in that way.
I find the development of procedures such as this uncomfortable, however. Since the last general election the Government have been ploughing piece after piece of radical legislation through the House without giving the other side a chance to consider it. Their aim has been to keep us going all the time, so that decent reflection and scrutiny are not possible.

Dame Peggy Fenner: I am delighted to have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, as it enables me to speak for a few moments in support of the motion.
In 1981, when the constituency of Chatham lost its famous dockyard, it became clear that considerable input would be needed from both the Government who had closed it and the two energetic local authorities involved if the area was to be rejuvenated, and if lost job opportunities were to be replaced. To that end, a great regeneration has taken place in the Medway towns. The current redevelopment of the industrial part of the


dockyard urgently necessitates improvements in our road structure so that the traffic thus generated does not make its way through the heart of the Medway towns.
In Rochester, we have a unique organisation called the Rochester Bridge trust. It was started some centuries ago by people in Kent, who contributed to a fund to provide a wooden crossing of the Medway. Since those days, thanks to a wise investment of the sum that remained, the trust has provided two beautiful modern bridges over the Medway. It was in fact the promoter of the Tunnel Bill, which suffered the same fate as the other private Bills that were objected to.
The Rochester Bridge trust—with the local authority and, I believe, with the support of the Department of Transport—is to pay for a new, modern Medway crossing in the form of a tunnel beneath the Medway, which is intended to preserve the environment of those who live in the Medway towns.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I think that I can be as brief as other hon. Members who have spoken.
In any Session a London Member will discover several private Bills of direct or indirect interest to him. I must declare a constituency interest in the United Medical and Dental Schools Bill owing to its connection with Guy's hospital, but five more of these private Bills relate to London: the City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill, the City of London (Various Powers) Bill, the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill, the London Local Authorities Bill and—because of its general implications —the British Railways Bill.
Some of those Bills—including, certainly, the United Medical and Dental Schools Bill—are uncontroversial, and have never been objected to on their merits; I believe that that also applies to the Medway Tunnel Bill, to which the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) referred. Clearly the passage of such Bills should not have been thwarted. Moreover, if another of the Bills in the list, the Nottingham Park Estate Bill, does not proceed to a conclusion this year it will be too late, because it relates to the implementation of the poll tax legislation next April, and the cost to its promoters has already been such that they will not be able to start again.
As the House knows, the trouble arises from two historical consequences of the private Bill procedure. First, private Bills have been used increasingly in place of the normal planning process. My colleagues and I have traditionally objected to that on principle, as it often constitutes an unsatisfactory way of bypassing those normal and appropriate procedures. Secondly, as the Chairman of the Procedure Committee knows, the procedures governing private business have needed reforming for some time, which is why I intervened on a point of order to ask whether the Leader of the House intended to say a few words on behalf of the Government.
I do not believe that we can leave tonight's debate feeling happy about the motion unless we know that urgent attention will be given to the reform of those procedures. I look forward to hearing from the Leader of the House that time will be found and the appropriate arrangements made by the Government, the Chairman of

Ways and Means and officers of all parties in the House to facilitate a necessary and long-delayed debate. We need to discuss the proper consideration given to the matter by the Procedure Committee, and the recommendations that it has made following much thought and the taking of much evidence.
We have not done ourselves a service in our handling of private business; nor, often, have we done a service to the promoters of private legislation, who have quite properly used a method whereby they believed that they could ensure the passage of their legislation, in the expectation that that legislation would be debated and put to a vote on its merits. It is perfectly proper for a private Bill to fall on its merits; it is also proper for a non-private Bill to fall because of procedural devices; but it is not at all proper for a private Bill to fall because of procedural wrangling intended to block another private Bill in which the relevant Members of Parliament have no interest.
I anticipate that tonight's debate will result in—as it were—a restoration of the status quo, and that an unusual, perhaps unprecedented, revival motion will in a sense return us to the last Session of Parliament. I hope that that will facilitate the normal passage of these Bills. If they are objected to individually, so be it, but I hope that we can at last get round to reforming our still antiquated private business procedures. By this time next year, perhaps a long-delayed reform will have occurred.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I, too, welcome the measure, although, like many of my colleagues, I regret the circumstances that have made it necessary. The Nottingham Park Estate Bill affects no one outside my constituency; indeed, it affects only those living within that estate, and I hope that my constituents will be allowed its passage. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, unless that passage is completed within the next few months the Bill will fall, which would be a tragedy for the people living in the estate.

Mr. John P. Smith: I have no wish to detain the House unnecessarily, nor have I any objection to the revival motion. I would like, however, to draw attention to one of the Bills involved, the Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill. Let me declare an interest immediately: I am a member of the borough council, and have been for some 10 years. Although the council promoted the Bill, however, I must make it clear that I speak as the Member of Parliament for the area. I have lodged an objection to the Bill, and I intend to put on record the reasons for my objection.
This is one of three Bills that have been presented to the House since 1956 in an attempt to develop the old harbour in the beautiful town of Barry. It seeks two powers: first, to reclaim substantial amounts of land in the old harbour; and, secondly, to implement engineering works so that lock gates can be installed. The intention is to develop housing and leisure facilities in the area. I am afraid that such a development may endanger the far more important and significant development of the docklands in the town that are owned by Associated British Ports. There are 100 acres of derelict land crying out to be developed round the No. 1 dock, which would make an ideal marina. For the


life of me, I cannot envisage any town needing two marinas when marinas have already been proposed at about 35 locations on the Welsh coast.
I therefore want an amendment to the Bill. I want the promoters to reduce the amount of land that they wish to reclaim by 30 per cent. They have already agreed in writing to do that. The second amendment would replace the lock gates with a half cill. There would be a salt water lake where water-based recreational activities could take place. It would not compete directly with the No. 1 dock, which is the ideal and obvious site for a marina. It would not, therfore, jeopardise the much more important development in Barry.
Barry was built on coal, on tourism at the turn of the century and on manufacturing industry at the end of the second world war. In the early 1980s we lost 85 per cent. of our manufacturing jobs. Our tourism is somewhat outdated, although I was glad to hear that Esther Rantzen and the BBC have had to pay damages for insulting our town—

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I understand his constituency interest, but he is straying from the revival motion.

Mr. Smith: It is important that the Bill should be revived and the debate continued on the Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill so that we reach the right compromise and achieve the best development of the area. We must take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to regenerate Barry. I have no objection, therefore, to the revival motion.

Mr. Neil Thorne: On behalf of my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and myself, Members of Parliament for the London borough of Redbridge, I support the motion. We believe that it would be entirely wrong if the expenditure by our constituents on promoting the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill were to be ignored without the case for the Bill being heard by the House.
The Bill was considered in Committee. The Committee's decision may or may not be what we might have wished, but its decision should be reported to the House so that it can decide whether to support the Committee. Therefore, we support the revival motion.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I support the motion. As the Member for Stockton, South I have sat here on a number of occasions and listened with frustration to the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill having its progress delayed by shouts of "Object."
The Bill is crucial to the economic regeneration of Teesside. It has gained the approval of the Teesside development corporation, a number of Labour-controlled local authorities and other local bodies. The various obstacles that the Bill has encountered have led to considerable surprise and consternation. It would attract investment of hundreds of millions of pounds. It would open up unparalleled employment and investment opportunities on Teesside. It is extremely galling to the people of the north-east to find that the Bill has been lost without even a modicum of discussion of its merits.
I am the Member of Parliament for the constituency that will be most significantly affected by the Bill. The river Tees runs through my constituency, and two of the three development sites that will be opened up by the Bill are in my constituency. A number of people in my part of the country will be much encouraged if the House allows the Bill to continue its progress, having been passed by the other place before it collapsed here at the end of the previous Session.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would not want, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to stand in the way of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is big enough, is he not?

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman has only just come in.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, I have just come in. I spend a lot of time in this place. I was here earlier, between 2.30 and 5.30. I did not see the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). The person who was sitting where he is sitting now was his old friend the ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I did not see the hon. Gentleman move up and let the ex-Prime Minister sit in his customary place, so the hon. Gentleman should not give me all that crap about how long he has been here.

Sir Peter Emery: Without that kind of interjection, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has been here long enough to know that many hon. Members do a lot of work outside the Chamber. Many of them sit on Committees. I have probably been here today far longer than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: That is a debating point. While the hon. Gentleman was making money in whatever business he makes money in now—he used to make it out of diving companies—I was in Committee this morning at 10.30. [Interruption.] I did not start this; the hon. Member for Honiton started it and I intend to finish it. I do not intend to be lectured by Conservative Members who make money in the law courts and come here later in the day to make money out of moonlighting jobs, as directors of this or that firm, or as parliamentary advisers.
One of the reasons why many Opposition Members opposed certain Bills was that it was drawn to our attention that the private Bill procedure was in a mess. One of the Bills that we came up against was the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. We thought that the four Members who considered the Bill in Committee were totally disinterested in the Bill. We took it for granted, perhaps naively, that hon. Members who were sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers could not sit on the Committee that considered the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Since it would lead to huge imports of coal, it was thought that we had a direct interest in stopping the Bill reaching the statute book. That was true, and what happened? NUM-sponsored Members were excluded from the Committee. Even my hon. Friend the


Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) was excluded, although he represents a constituency where there are still miners.
Who sat on the Bill? Two hon. Members with no connections with the mining industry were Committee members. The conventions of the House allow two Tory Members to sit on the other side of the Committee. One of them, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who is not here, ended up as Chairman of the Committee that considered the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. When we made some inquiries, we found that he is not at all disinterested. He is the parliamentary adviser to the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association. One of the firms that is a part of that consortium has a sister or brother company that promoted a Bill relating to the Humber—the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill.
So we have a Tory Chairman with a direct interest in the Bill. We had a Bill several pages long that took weeks and weeks in Committee, and some of my hon. Friends decided to table some amendments. What happened? Surprise, surprise, the two Tories voted, and the very-much-interested Chairman used his casting vote to ensure that no amendment went through.
Experienced parliamentarians will know—you will know it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that, when a Bill is in Committee for months, the chances are that one or two amendments will get through. It is almost certain that some major amendments will get through, but with that Bill it was deemed that no amendments should be allowed because the Tories did not want us to have a Report stage. The result was that no amendments went through—it was 2–2 and the casting vote every time. As a result, the Bill was excluded from a Report stage on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that the Bill that he is referring to now is not in the motion before the House.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, I know that, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must direct his remarks to Bills that are contained in the motion.

Mr. Skinner: I have no doubts about the fact that the Associated British Ports Bill is not included in this long list of Bills in the motion, but it is first on the agenda, and there will be a Third Reading debate on it when we come back after Christmas.
I know what the score is, but I have to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that you can tell the Clerk sitting in front of you, who is telling you to put me in order. You should tell the Clerk that I am explaining why there has been a backlog of Bills. One of the reasons is that the Tory Government have been playing politics with the Associated British Ports Bill. Why? Because they want South African coal to be imported into Britain. They do not care tuppence about the balance of payments deficit. They are prepared to add to it, and to shut pits to allow South African coal to come in.
Some of us have had the guts to stand up and oppose the Associated British Ports Bill in the House, and so there has been a backlog of Bills. The hon. Member for Honiton knows all about it because he is Chairman of the Procedure Committee. He is not wet behind the ears, and he knows that that is one of the reasons why we have a

string of private Bills today, and why there is a revival motion, which is a relatively new procedure and not normal practice for the House of Commons. The revival motion is for all the Bills that fell before the end of the last parliamentary Session.
The Government were so certain that they would get their measures through. Some of those Bills were political, and some were ordinary, run-of-the-mill private Bills that came up in the normal way. I would have supported some of them. The reason for the backlog is that the Government have allowed the private Bill procedure to fall into disrepute. That is why the Chairman of the Procedure Committee has raised the matter before. The Committee has discussed the issue on several occasions.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Skinner: I am not wrong. Does the hon. Gentleman want to join in the debate, because I know that he has stood in the Chamber on numerous occasions and said to the Leader of the House, "Why don't you do something about the private Bill procedure?" I have heard him say it.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman may know that the Procedure Committee can deal only with public business. We cannot deal with private business, and the matter has not been discussed by the Procedure Committee at any time. I only point that out so that the hon. Gentleman can get it right.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter with the Leader of the House on previous occasions, and with the previous Leader of the House. He knows that the private Bill procedure has created a lot of difficulties. We have a backlog of private Bills because too many people understood what was happening to the procedure.
Public companies make representations in this place, through the promoter, to get their Bills through. They should go to the local authority to get planning permission, but the private Bill is a convenient way to get round that.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It is convenient.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman should have told that to some of his hon. Friends who ought to have been in the Coal Industry Bill Committee today, but who were missing. Have they got the 'flu as well? They are falling like flies. I noticed the Prime Minister was in the Division Lobby earlier spreading it. She looked as if she was deliberately bumping into our Members, but I do not think she was all that successful.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made a worthwhile remark—it is convenient. Companies say, "Can we get this through the local authority?" The answer is, "You haven't got a cat in hell's chance, but I'll tell you what we'll do. I have a promoter, a nice fellow in the House of Commons, he will slip it through". The company asks, "Is it all right?" The answer is, "Yes. It's easy. The Tories have a 150 majority."
A lot of people are not fully aware that one can do anything when one has a 150 majority. They do not have to bring in all their Members to get a Bill through. They can settle it with two-thirds of their members, and allow a third to go missing, go to bed or go to work in the City, or wherever.
More companies are saying "That's a nice little earner. Let's get it through on the Floor of the House." Some


Opposition Members have got wise to that. Naturally, some people want some Bills, and some do not. The result has been a backlog that has continued to grow. The determination of the Tory Government to get the Associated British Ports Bill through has meant that the backlog has got worse.
Some Opposition Members are determined to cut back the current balance of payments deficit, even though the Government are not. We do not want more and more coal to be brought into Britain. We detest the fact that coal is coming from South Africa, in particular, but it is a scandal for any coal to come into Britain when pits are being shut down. That is what the Government's policy is all about.
Some Opposition Members believe that if private Bills are allowed to get through, it will result in a massive drain on the balance of payments. It will lead to the closing of pits in nearly every British coalfield. So, is the Associated British Ports Bill a political Bill? The answer is yes, of course it is. It should have been in the Queen's Speech. The Government should have the guts to say that they want to bring in a Bill that will result in shutting down pits. They do not have the guts, and so they allow promoters to bring in the Bill, through the back door, and then they expect Labour Members to say, "Oh well, we'd better not oppose it. It's a private Bill."
We are not wet behind the ears. We did not drop off a Christmas tree. We know what the game is all about. We understood that when we had the Felixstowe Dock and Harbour Bill. They are political Bills. That is why the Prime Minister used to turn up to vote for the Associated British Ports Bill in her carpet slippers. She knows whose side she is on—the side of people importing South African coal. Making money for her friends in the City—that is what the game is all about. When that happens, somebody has to have the guts to say, "We are not prepared to tolerate it." That is what we have done, although on some occasions it has meant other Bills being blocked.
It is vital to spot the Bill that is a wolf in sheep's clothing—the political Bill which is not really a private Bill. We have to draw its presence to the notice of the authorities of the House. As a result, the Leader of the House has said two or three times that he will do something about this procedure. I do not know what he will do.

Mr. Barry Field: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the Isle of Wight Bill is political?

Mr. Skinner: I did not say that it was. The hon. Gentleman has not been listening carefully. There may be some political content. We have always had private Bills, but now that we have a Tory Government with a big majority it is easier to get around the planning laws at local authority level by pushing through a private Bill, especially if it suits the Government. The Isle of Wight Bill, like many others, got caught up in the backlog.
There is another Bill in the list called the London Local Authorities Bill. I did not know much about it until I bumped into someone recently and asked about it. It concerns street markets in London in the main. Most Labour-controlled local authorities say that it is not bad, that they have tidied it up and, because most boroughs in London are Labour-controlled, there is no problem. But what about the poor people in Westminster who have to operate in Lady Porter's domain? Street traders in

Westminster must be worried about people from Westminster city council operating under that Bill. Such considerations must be explored.
At the end of the previous Session, the Leader of the House had five or six nights without sleep. He kept having to come in at 2 am or 3 am. He has been dropping off ever since. He had to come in and, to use a parliamentary phrase, pull stumps because some of us were protesting about how private Bills were being used. We told him time and again that, if he wanted to get to bed at a decent time and not have to surrender Government business, which he had to do five times, or use the guillotine, he should reform the private Bill procedure so that political Bills did not emerge as private Bills, thus bringing Parliament into disrepute. That is just one of the reasons why this backlog has arisen.
Contrary to the advice that you have received from your Clerk, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must tell you that we object for reasons that are connected with the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and others, such as the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. You cannot hide behind the notion that these Bills are not connected, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many are. That is why many of us have come here night after night to oppose Government business. That is the only power that Oppositions have.
If you read any textbook about parliamentary government, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will find that they tell you that the Opposition have the power to oppose, day and night. They are taking a bit of a liberty when they write stuff like that, but there is an element of truth in it. It is not the truth and nothing but the truth, but there is a bit of truth in it. If a few hon. Members are prepared to fight and stick it out night after night, they can force the Government to introduce a guillotine. We cannot stop Government business, but we can delay it. It is the Opposition's job to oppose. We do not expect to defeat a Government with a majority of 150—

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Of 150?

Mr. Skinner: It is 150 against Labour. I cannot account for these rag, tag and bobtails behind me who turn up only half the time, nor can I account for hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland who turn up now and again and usually vote Tory. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is not sitting in his usual place. I do not know why he is trying to cuddle up to the Government's deputy Chief Whip. Normally he does not and sticks out for his pure, undiluted monetarism. Perhaps he has thrown the towel in because he voted with the Prime Minister on the motion on war crimes. [Interruption.] Well, it sounds as though he voted with her. I thought that he would be one of the "certs" to vote against her.
We have power to hold the Government back, but we are not naive enough to believe that we can hold them back for ever. They have increasingly used the power of the guillotine to stop debate and to stop democracy. Other Governments have done that too.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Does my hon. Friend recall that it has not always been necessary for the Leader of the House to pull up stumps in debates on private Bills? Does he recollect that a very large party was thrown for Tory MPs to keep them here for most of the night?

Mr. Skinner: To keep them here?

Mr. Lofthouse: Yes. The ports authorities threw a party to keep Tory Members here.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) is absolutely right. That is a classic example of the abuse that occurs as a result of the private Bill procedure. The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill was also entirely political from beginning to end. It sought to change the ports facilities along the east coast. There was real money to be made. It was not about tidying up a little bit of coastline; it was about making real brass. It was all about sweeteners—the current word for bribery and crookedness. So what happened? The promoters of the Bill said, "We had better keep the Tories here." They were not too sure whether Tory Members would stay all night as we had tabled a host of amendments. The Government have not allowed any amendments on the Associated British Ports Bill. That is one lesson they have learnt. The promoters said, "We shall keep the Tories here. We have it all arranged. We know they like a night out. We know that they like their champagne, so we shall put on a little party close by." But somebody on our side managed to get wind of it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: They had an invitation.

Mr. Skinner: I think that they sent an invitation to somebody with a similar name. It is the cock-up theory of history and it happens from time to time. As a result, the whole idea was blown so the Tories had to hurriedly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is puzzling me now. I cannot find the relationship between what he is saying and the revival motion before the House.

Mr. Skinner: I do not know whether you received an invite, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so you might well be puzzled. If you did not get an invite and you were not there that night, I can understand your bewilderment. We all understand that. We were not invited. We did not want an invite. We should have liked the Tory Members to go to the party because we would have called a snap vote.
You ask whether it is relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You bet it is. It is relevant because this is a revival motion. The Chairman of Ways and Means has probably told you that we are debating a revival motion because the Government could not get the Bill through in the last Session. They could not get a carry-over motion so that the Bills could be debated in this Session. It is really a crazy system. The textbooks say that if the Government lose a Bill in a parliamentary Session, it is dead. But the Government have a quaint little procedure which is very handy when money is being made on the side—to have a carry-over motion. If they cannot get a carry-over motion to the next Session of Parliament, they have a revival motion when the Session is finished.

Mr. David Harris: Disgraceful.

Mr. Skinner: It is disgraceful. I am pleased that someone has woken up to the fact that all that corruption and graft is associated with private Bills. There is no question but that it is disgraceful, especially when it will throw people out of work. Some people in my constituency are playing merry hell about these ports Bills. They say it is disgraceful every day of the week. I hope that the hon.

Member for Honiton puts those words into practice when the Associated British Ports Bill comes back after Christmas.

Sir Peter Emery: I did not say that.

Mr. Skinner: So the hon. Gentleman did not say that. It must have been one of his mates. But there is no doubt that it is disgraceful. Does the hon. Member for Honiton agree that it is disgraceful even if he did not say so at the time?
It is all about politics. It is not about private Bills. The Opposition know that and so do the Government, but they shelter behind them.
So we have a revival motion. It does not happen all the time, does it, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I bet that it is the first one since you have been in the Chair. I am taking a bet on it, but I might be right. I think that the first time a revival motion was used was for one of the Channel tunnel Bills. It was one of the ones with which the Government got mixed up. They got mixed up with the latest one because they ran out of money. In 1974, a snap election was called during the recess and the Channel Tunnel Bill was still on the stocks. When they called the general election the parliamentary Session ended. What did they do? They said, "We have not had a carry-over motion for the Channel Tunnel Bill, so we shall invent another name." That is what they did, and they called it a revival motion.
It is said that this mother of Parliaments has the sort of democracy that we shall sell to every country in the world —every Third world country comes trotting here to see the mother of Parliaments—but, by God, it is a bit seedy when one examines what happens. Not only are there 1,000 people down the other end of this mother of Parliaments who have not been elected by anybody, but in here the Government twist and turn and use the procedures to get their business through in order to line the pockets of their friends.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have resisted intervening so far. Although the hon. Gentleman's lecture on constitutional law is welcome, he always misses one salient point—none of the private Bills that are supported by the Government would get through if the membership of this place reflected the views of the electorate. When he supports a proper electoral system I shall more frequently support his arguments on constitutional law.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will not be tempted to broaden the debate to the electoral system.

Mr. Skinner: I am talking about a revival motion. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey knows all about revivals—his party has tried about three in the past 12 months. Only a few weeks ago, he was threatening that if the Liberal party did not revive itself and change its name for the 15th time in the past 12 months he would join the greens. He was going to start a revival motion for the Green party, but now that it has fallen in the opinion polls he never talks about it; he has gone back to the Mary Rose and all the rest of it. I do not want any lectures about revivals from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We are very good at revivals.

Mr. Skinner: No, the hon. Gentleman's party is not. It has tried mergers with Dr. Death and now it is trying them with Paddy Backdown. It has had revival after revival, but


it is as far away from power as the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. The hon. Gentleman talks about something that I am not allowed to refer to—

Mr. Hughes: Comedian.

Mr. Skinner: "Comedian?" The hon. Gentleman's party talks about proportional representation and bringing more of its people into Parliament. We want people to work when they get here; we want them to do a stint; and we want them to chuck a shovel full on when they come here. But the truth is that on the occasions when we have needed them, such as on the vote on charges for spectacles and dentistry, when we came close to defeating the Government, what happened to the champions of PR? They were having a seminar somewhere, and I think that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was one of those who went missing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Member for Bolsover has been tempted by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), but I am sure that he will come back to the straight and narrow.

Mr. Skinner: I do not want to go down that road because I have dealt with why we have the revival motion. Labour Members understand why we have it and that it should be put right.
The Leader of the House has not had his job long. Other Leaders of the House threatened to change the procedure but never did so. Some were shifted because they were semi-detached and did not carry it through. I do not know what is in the Prime Minister's mind, but in this Session the deputy Prime Minister might have a chance to change the procedure. One thing that he could do that would make a massive difference to our view is to take some steps to ensure that the Associated British Ports (No.2) Bill is not given a Third Reading. He should have words with the authorities, as they call them in this place. He should bring out some new steps for the procedure and hold back the Bill. There may be some collaboration—I cannot guarantee that personally, but some of my hon. Friends might agree. Then, having established that good will, the procedure might be changed. The Leader of the House would have fewer headaches and the Government might return to using the private Bill procedure for what it is really intended—those Bills that have come through in the normal fashion. The political Bills that I and other hon. Members have described should be shoved on to an agenda where they belong and be returned to the planning authorities. If that happens as a result of this discussion on the revival motion, it will have been worthwhile.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): After the speech of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I have a little hesitation in responding to the invitation extended to me by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). However, I hope that it will still be helpful if I intervene in the context of this mass resurrection motion that is designed to correct the near-slaughter of the innocents that took place towards the end of the previous Session. I remind the House that the motion stands in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but it was

commended earlier in its life by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who is the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.
Private Bills do not always complete all their stages in one Session, but the promoters of such Bills have the right to expect the House to reach a decision on their proposals and to reach that decision—as hon. Members have pointed out—on the merits of the Bill, not as a consequence of procedural hazard. Our procedures allow for carry-over and revival motions. They exist to provide the framework —as they always have—within which we conduct business in the House, whether public or private. They exist for the effective operation of the House as a whole irrespective of the political complexion of the Government of the day. The diversity of the various private Bills referred to in the motion shows beyond doubt the wishes of their promoters for them to continue and the fact that the motion stands in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means shows that he is satisfied that everything is in order.
The merits of the individual Bills have nothing to do with the motion. They have parents and godparents of various political and other persuasions. Several of my hon. Friends have spoken, including my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and representatives from Nottingham and Redbridge. Opposition Members have also spoken, including the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), who is not here now. I listened with some affection to his speech because the Vale of Glamorgan is the only part of Wales where members of my family still dwell. The last time I went to the Vale of Glamorgan was to try to prevent the hon. Gentleman from being elected, but I was not successful.
As many hon. Members have emphasised, private Bills should be considered and should pass or fail on their merits. There is no real reason for any of them to be grouped into a type of mass dismissal. We should consider the innocent and virtuous titles listed in the two schedules. The promoters of those Bills are entitled to a decision on the merits of the proposals and not to see the decision frustrated by procedure.
It is clear from what has been said by the hon. Member for Bolsover and others that some hon. Members either oppose the whole system of private legislation or oppose the present scope or pattern of it. We must deal with matters as they are on the basis of our existing procedures. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) was not alone when he suggested that some of these things would be better handled by means of planning inquiries. I am not an overwhelming enthusiast for the merits of planning inquiries, which have their own shortcomings. That may be a reason why private Bills have become a more attractive alternative. He suggested that they might be the subject of Government or hybrid Bills. They could be dealt with by other methods but this method has been used for many years. It is a route that exists and we should not allow our irritation with one route or one vehicle on that route to block the vehicles that have set out with high expectations.
On the substance of what to do about this procedure in the future, I have said to the House more than once that the whole question of the private Bill procedure is an important subject. However, I find increasingly that it is complex. At first, it appears to be rather obscure and procedural, as though it was dealing with topics of


peripheral interest, but the more one looks at it, and the more one considers our debates here, the clearer it becomes that private Bills can and do deal with important topics.
The existing arrangements, which have worked quite well, have lasted for a long time under various Governments. It is important that any changes that we undertake should lead to an improvement in the overall balance of procedures and should be equally enduring. For that reason, we are looking at the matter not only with a real sense of urgency, but with some care. I am not sure that the Joint Committee has said the last word on what we should do. Following the debates earlier this year and my own learning curve on the subject, I am consulting a number of my right hon. Friends and colleagues from several parties to try to tackle the problem, which we must take seriously. I assure the House that our sense of urgency is genuine, and the contribution of the hon. Member for Bolsover underlines my feeling of that sense of urgency.
The reasons that prompted the Joint Committee to recommend major changes have not disappeared. Clearly, we need to deal with them, but because the changes may be substantial and difficult to work out, and may require wide consultation, I must warn the House that I cannot promise when we shall be able to come forward with them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Leader of the House say whether he hopes to be able to reach his own conclusions and to make recommendations this Session?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope to be able to reach conclusions and to bring them forward this Session, in whatever may be the appropriate place—[Interruption.] That is a matter for consideration—[Interruption.] It is not a bad answer for all that. It may be possible to deal with some points quite early, whereas others may require rather more substantial legislation.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would not be a major step for the House to accept the simple reform of ensuring that the names of hon. Gentlemen who object to a Bill are recorded in Hansard? That would at least bring some accountability to this process.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As with so many topics, several of the 39 different proposals that are contained in the Joint Committee report are simple and identifiable, such as the one mentioned by my hon. Friend, but one has to try to identify a group or groups with which to proceed, step by step, as effectively as we can.
As many hon. Members have said, this is an unusual motion, but it has arisen from unusual circumstances. It is a matter of real concern that the House has departed from the tradition of discussing and objecting to private Bills solely according to the merits of each of them. The attempt to tackle one Bill by directing an onslaught at a number of them at the same time has contributed to our present problems.
Like other hon. Members, I hope that revival motions will not become a habit and I hope that the tactics that have given rise to them will not become a habit. On that basis, we intend to go ahead with a study of the necessary changes and I intend to report back to the House as soon as I can. I hope that the House will accept and vote on the

motion for what it is—a procedural motion directed to the Bills that are listed in the schedules to enable consideration of them to continue, as it should.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I welcome those remarks from the Leader of the House. In the style of certain television interviewers, let me repeat what he said so that there can be no misunderstanding about it. As I understand it, he will look at the procedure that so many hon. Members realise is deeply unsatisfactory with a real sense of urgency. If he does that, he will certainly have the co-operation of Opposition Members. Even during this brief debate a number of hon. Members have expressed their profound dissatisfaction with the procedure on private business. Private Bills affect environmental matters and circumvent planning procedures, and Bills that are clearly of national importance are dealt with under this procedure. It seems that we are substantially to revise and reform the procedure. Opposition Members look forward to that happening rapidly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That
—the Promoters of every Private Bill which originated in this House in the last Session and which is listed in Schedule A to this Order, or which originated in the House of Lords in the last Session and which is listed in Schedule B to this Order may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
—every such Bill which originated in this House shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
—there shall be deposited with every Bill so presented a Declaration signed by the Agent for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
—every Bill so presented shall be laid by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office upon the Table of the House on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill was presented;
—every Bill listed in Part I of Schedule A shall, after being so laid on the Table, be deemed to have been read the first, second, and third time, and shall pass;
—every Bill listed in Part II of Schedule A shall, after being so laid on the Table, be deemed to have been read the first and second time and reported from Committee and ordered to lie upon the Table;
—when any Bill originating in the Lords, which was brought from the House of Lords in the last Session and to which this Order relates, is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a Declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session, and, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a Declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed—

(i) in the case of the Buckinghamshire County Council Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords], the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords] and the United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [Lords], to have been read the first and second time and committed and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
(ii) in the case of the Nottingham Park Estate Bill [Lords], to have been read the first and second time and committed;


(iii) in the case of the Medway Tunnel Bill [Lords] and the Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [Lords], to have been read the first time and ordered to be read a second time;
(iv) in the case of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [Lords], to have been read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills;

—in respect of all the Bills listed in Schedules A and B to this Order, the various stages deemed to have been taken shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been taken;
—only such Petitions as were presented against any Bill brought from the Lords in the last Session which stood referred to the Committee on the Bill and which have not been withdrawn shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill with the same title in the present Session;
—in relation to any Bill to which this Order applies, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to Committee of Petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
—in respect of any Bill originating in the House of Lords to which this Order relates and upon which the Examiners have reported in the last Session that no Standing Order not previously inquired into was applicable thereto, the Examiners shall, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, he deemed to have made the same report in the present Session;
—no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on any of the Bills to which this Order relates so far as Fees were incurred during the last Session;
—this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution contained in their Message [22nd November] relating to the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill [Lords], the Happisburgh Lighthouse Bill [Lords], the Great Yarmouth Port Authority Bill [Lords], the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords], the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords] and the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [Lords].

Schedule A

Part I

1. City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill
2. Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Bill
3. Isle of Wight Bill
4. New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Limited Bill
5. St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill
6. Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill

Part II

1. British Film Institute Southbank Bill
2. British Railways Bill
3. City of London (Various Powers) Bill
4. Redbridge London Borough Council Bill

Schedule B

1. Buckinghamshire County Council Bill [Lords]
2. London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]
3. South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [Lords]
4. United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [Lords]
5. Nottingham Park Estate Bill [Lords]
6. Medway Tunnel Bill [Lords]
7. Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [Lords]
8. Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [Lords]

Electricity Supply (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
That the draft Electricity Supply (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 24th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
I welcome Northern Ireland Members and others to this debate. In case one or two other hon. Members are on their way, let me just say in passing that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for his remarks. Lest he should think that I have changed my interest completely, I would point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), who would normally be introducing the order, is on his way back from a "boost Northern Ireland" visit to the Far East. I am sure that he would wish me to take his place as best I can.
As we do not always have the opportunity to debate Northern Ireland matters properly, I should also like to declare that it has been eight days since someone died on the roads in Northern Ireland. That is a remarkable change in the normal pattern, and I hope that it will continue.
The purpose of the draft order is to ensure that Northern Ireland Electricity has the authority to take any steps necessary to facilitate the implementation of privatisation proposals that will be brought forward in due course by the Government. It will enable Northern Ireland Electricity to influence the working out of the detail of those proposals.
The order replicates the provisions of section 1 of the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988, which conferred similar powers on water authorities and electricity boards in Great Britain in preparation for the: privatisation of those industries.
Last year the Government announced their intention to privatise NIE. This brought policy regarding the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland into line with that for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is right that Northern Ireland too should benefit from private sector involvement in the industry.
The benefits are potentially very great. The injection of private sector management skills, a commercial approach that will put a premium on efficiency and economy of operation, the stimulus of new thinking from outside the public sector and the pressures of the capital market will all help to create an industry which performs better and gives the consumer a better deal.
Work on the privatisation has been progressing steadily. Preliminary studies of the major issues involved —structure, regulation, method of sale and so on—has been carried out by consultants and the Government have been looking more deeply into some of the points which those studies have highlighted.
The Department of Economic Development has recently appointed its financial and economic advisers for the privatisation and the other necessary advisers will be taken on board as soon as possible. These, and the industry itself, will assist in the formulation of firm proposals which Government hope to finalise in the first half of next year.
The privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity will present a unique challenge. There are a number of complex issues to be addressed, mostly arising from the size and nature of the Northern Ireland electricity system.
It is a very small system in European terms and at present it is not interconnected with any other grid. Because of the scattered nature of the Northern Ireland population, NIE's customer density is low and its distribution network correspondingly large.
The industry is somewhat over-dependent on oil-fired generating plant. Its financial performance is therefore vulnerable to movements in world oil prices. The smallness of the system also presents a challenge as regards the introduction of competition. There will need to be a balance between competition and regulation. The more competition can be introduced, the less intensive regulation will need to be. The Government are exploring and considering various ways of dealing with these issues and others that inevitably arise in the privatisation of an essential industry.
In developing our proposals we shall have the benefit of the thinking that has gone into the privatisation of the electricity supply industry of Great Britain. Once they are developed, after full consultation, Parliament's approval will then be sought for the substantive legislation which will be required to put them into effect.
The short draft order does not confer any power to give effect to proposals for the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity. That is a matter for substantive legislation—the Northern Ireland equivalent of the Great Britain electricity legislation.
The present order is modest. It is paving legislation.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is it proposed that the substantive measure which will follow this proposal will be a Bill that is capable of amendment, or will it be a further order which is not amendable?

Mr. Bottomley: It will follow the normal pattern for Northern Ireland. It will not be a Bill in the conventional sense. I do not think that that comes as a surprise to hon. Members.
The order is needed for two reasons: Northern Ireland Electricity needs to be able to make early plans to ensure that once the proposals have been approved by Parliament they can be promptly implemented; NIE needs also to be able to assist in working out the practical details of the proposals, and, where appropriate, argue for modification of these details. Examples include the nature of the regulatory regime or the structure of the successor company or companies.
Northern Ireland Electricity may well wish to commission financial, legal or other expert advice to help it work out the implications of the Government's proposals or suggest alternatives. This order will establish its power to do those things and to incur expenditure on them.
Northern Ireland Electricity already has the power to do things of that kind for the purpose of its statutory functions. This order will remove any doubt as to its power to do them for purposes related to the transfer of its assets or functions.
It is important that Northern Ireland Electricity should make its full contribution to the detailed working through of the Government's proposals and so help to ensure a successful privatisation.
It is right that Northern Ireland Electricity should be able to take any preliminary steps to put itself in a position to implement the privatisation proposals expeditiously, once Parliament approves them, so that there need be no unnecessary delay. This order ensures that there is no impediment to NIE doing so.
The order does not confer powers on the Government. The powers it confers on Northern Ireland Electricity are limited. Northern Ireland Electricity may react only in response to Government proposals and may seek only to modify related proposals giving effect to the basic proposals, not the basic proposals themselves.
The powers are important. It is fair and prudent to ensure that Northern Ireland Electricity is in a position to make a full contribution to the debate about the future form of electricity supply in Northern Ireland. It is vital to the economic and social well-being of Northern Ireland that the privatisation arrangements are such that the electricity supply industry will be reliable, efficient and responsive to consumers' needs. Northern Ireland Electricity's input is essential to achieve that.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The translation of what the Minister said at the conclusion of his remarks is that Northern Ireland's electricity service will be invited and ordered to arrange its own funeral. Hon. Members are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the way in which issues of great importance for the future of Northern Ireland are discussed in such a brief and inadequate way. This order, simple though it appears on the surface, and simple though the Minister would have us believe it is, raises many issues of great complexity and importance. We will have no opportunity to amend the order or to give it the serious, in-depth consideration that it deserves—nor, indeed, the succeeding order which will privatise Northern Ireland Electricity.
I part company with some hon. Members on the solution to the difficulty. This issue should be discussed in a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland. I hope that, one day—perhaps in the near future—the parties involved will be able to agree among themselves so that legislation of this nature will be dealt with in such an Assembly and discussed by Northern Ireland interests, and not be dictated to by a Government from Britain. I hope also that they will be able to discuss such legislation in the context not only of Northern Ireland but of 1992 and the implications of an energy policy for the island of Ireland as a whole.
It has been suggested that Northern Ireland is regarded as a laboratory where new policies can be tested without running the risk of incurring the hostility of the population of Great Britain.
This order is relatively unusual in that we see the reverse —policies that have been rejected by the vast majority of the British people and have already been publicly demonstrated to be failures will now be introduced into Northern Ireland. The Government have learnt nothing from the shambles of electricity privatisation in Britain, and therefore we have this order. However inappropriate


electricity privatisation is for the much larger British economy, the effect is magnified in Northern Ireland. In this case, the Government are intent on ensuring that farce repeats itself as tragedy.
Before considering privatisation in detail, it is necessary to look at the order itself. A most defective order has been presented to the House which fails to spell out, even in outline terms, the framework for future regulatory mechanisms for the privatised electricity industry in Northern Ireland. The House will no doubt be surprised that we are considering this order because the Minister has promised to publish a White Paper on this issue next spring. He seems to have inverted the normal timetable for legislation and is asking the House to buy a pig in a poke.
I have two main criticisms about the drafting of the order. First, it gives no indication of the parameters of the investigations that must precede privatisation. It is a piece of enabling legislation that gives us little idea about what we are being asked to enable. Secondly, we are being asked to abrogate our responsibilities for public expenditure by giving a blank cheque to the Northern Ireland electricity service so that it may proceed with arrangements for its own demise. I should think that many hon. Members, even those who are committed supporters of privatisation, would be somewhat worried by the extent of the mandate that the Government are asking them to give to NIES.
As for the substance of the policies represented by the order, there is a striking difference between the position in Britain and that in Northern Ireland. If the privatisation of the electricity industry in Great Britain demonstrates the economic bankruptcy of the Government's position, the proposed privatisation of electricity in Northern Ireland completely contradicts one of the fundamental tenets of the Government's philosophy. We are frequently reminded of the virtues of competition. The Department of Trade and Industry turns out endless streams of propaganda on the theme; the Lord Chancellor wants to strengthen competition in the legal profession; and the Secretary of State for Health talks about an internal market in the National Health Service. For the Government, competition is clearly a principle, not even just even a means to an end.
The Government have made gestures towards the idea of ensuring competition in the electricity industry in Great Britain by the separation of National Power and PowerGen. They have at least recognised that their philosophy of economic liberalism should not allow the natural monopolies to be controlled by private interests. Such private control of the public purse is a recipe for the exploitation of the public by private interests—a sort of legalised, electrified Mafia. But as far as anyone can tell, given the paucity of information from the Government and the Minister tonight, that is precisely what the Government propose to do in the case of the Northern Ireland electricity service. They want to place the monopoly enjoyed by the electricity service in the hands of the private sector. All the signs are that the Government intend to sell off Northern Ireland Electricity as a single entity. That is the germ of what the Minister has said, despite his lip service to the concept of competition.
Such an arrangement is simply a recognition of the economic and technical realities of the Northern Ireland electricity service—realities that would make the National Power-PowerGen type of arrangement impractical for Northern Ireland. As the Minister said, the market is too small to make the operation of more than one firm

profitable. Competition within the industry is almost impossible. Given that a larger number of power stations is required than is strictly necessary for economic reasons to guarantee security of supply, it is difficult to envisage a situation in which there would be competing generating authorities.
The monopoly problem is compounded by the position of electricity within the energy industry in general in Northern Ireland. It is correct to say that electricity is not the only source of power. However, its position is substantially assisted by the absence of an equally clean and convenient source of energy, such as gas. This privatisation is particularly appalling given the efforts which the Government devoted in the early 1980s to the destruction of the gas industry and its attendant jobs in Northern Ireland. Now, having given electricity a much stronger position in the energy market than it would otherwise have enjoyed, they intend to sacrifice the future of the electricity consumer in Northern Ireland to the tender mercies of the so-called free market.
This is a classic example of a case where the grounds for maintaining an industry in public hands are overwhelming, even from the perspective of the prophets of laissez-faire.
The next major concern of the Opposition about the practical effects of privatisation on electricity in Northern Ireland is the impact that it will have on the price of electricity to industrial and domestic users—to the manufacturer, farmer and housewife.
The Northern Ireland electricity service suffers from a number of natural disadvantages which ensure that it is a high-cost supplier of electricity. Those factors have little to do with any inefficiency that can be corrected by a more efficient management, whether in public or private hands. In that sense, the arguments in favour of privatization—which, in any case, I do not accept—are a complete irrelevance. It cannot have any significant impact on the costs of the generation and supply of electricity in Northern Ireland.
The NIES is a high-cost supplier because the dispersal of population means higher distribution costs. Outside Belfast, the population is widely scattered throughout the Province, which naturally involves greater cost in delivering electricity to where it is required. Coupled with that are the costs of generating electricity. The NIES must provide a higher margin of reserve capacity because it is a stand-alone system; it cannot import from elsewhere to make up its shortfalls. Therefore, it needs the security of additional generating capacity. In the interest of security of supply, generating capacity must be shared around a number of units so that the system is not over-dependent on the output of a particular plant.
There is a much higher ratio of capacity to average demand. In addition, the lack of a significant number of large industrial users means that the peaks and troughs of demand are more divergent in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain or the Republic. There is a larger gap between the average demand and peak demand. That requires the Northern Ireland electricity service to provide a generating capacity which it would not otherwise need. In addition, the service is extremely vulnerable to rises in the dollar price of oil.
We are talking about differences—this is where the Government are making their great error—between the electricity industry in Northern Ireland and the industry in Great Britain. That fact has been recognised by the


institution of the tariff link. The Minister must be aware of the great concern in Northern Ireland about the implications of privatisation for the tariff link. Under the present system, Northern Ireland's electricity prices are linked to the highest prices in Great Britain and any shortfall is made up by a subsidy to the electricity service. Privatisation obviously contains substantial dangers to the tariff link.
With privatisation, the rate of return on the capital employed in the industry will become all-important. Investors will expect a rate of return that compares with equivalent forms of investment. The Government should publish as soon as possible the rate of return that they expect the Northern Ireland electricity service to produce if they wish employers in the Province to make the necessary decisions about their future investment requirements. They must also make clear the valuation of the assets of the service.
One can see two ways in which the Northern Ireland electricity service could gain sufficient revenue to provide a higher rate of return than it does at present. The first would be for the Government simply to increase the subsidy. But if the NIES were in private hands, that would be an extremely peculiar way in which to proceed. Are the Government seriously suggesting that not only should the taxpayer be relieved of an existing asset, but that the new owners should then be given an increased subsidy to take the asset off the hands of the taxpayer? That reveals the absurdity of the privatisation scheme. But then that happened in the case of Austin Rover, so it is not impossible in Northern Ireland.
The second, more fearful alternative would be to increase the cost of electricity to domestic and industrial consumers. The size of the increase will depend largely on the rate of return which the Government will expect Northern Ireland Electricity to yield in private hands. A reasonable assumption is 5 per cent. If, for the sake of argument, the industry was privatised in 1990, an increase in prices of 13 per cent. above the rate of inflation would probably be required. There is some speculation in that suggestion. That is why it is important that the Government make their intentions known as soon as possible. Such speculation is going on in every firm in Northern Ireland and is hampering investment decisions. That is not Opposition scaremongering but a serious issue which will affect the future of the economy of Northern Ireland.
We know that prices will rise, but we do not yet know by how much above the rate of inflation. We shall pose a serious problem for future industrial competitiveness and development in Northern Ireland if we compound uncertain energy prices with transport costs due to the remoteness of major markets. I hope that the Government will accept their responsibility in this respect and act quickly to alleviate that anxiety among firms in Northern Ireland.
Privatisation is bound to increase prices, but any rise above the rate of inflation will place substantial burdens on industrial and domestic consumers. Faced with the prospect of increased competition with the advent of the single European market, rises in production costs will not help industry to meet its difficulties, particularly if it is to compete with lower energy costs in the Republic.
With regard to domestic consumers, we are all too well aware that Northern Ireland is one of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom. Fuel costs are an important item in most domestic budgets, but they loom larger the poorer the family is. We should not increase the burden by unnecessarily raising the cost of electricity in a low-wage economy and an area with a greater proportion of families dependent on social benefits than anywhere else in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. No doubt the Minister is already aware that in recent months there has been a substantial increase over and above the estimated rate of 30 per cent. for electricity disconnections in Belfast.
The privatisation proposals contained in the order raise another problem specific to Northern Ireland. It is the issue of energy problems and energy supplies in the Province. No doubt the Minister is well aware of the widespread anxiety among trade unions and employers about the possible severe problems of energy supplies in the mid-1990s. He will also be aware that the deafening silence of the Department of Economic Development only increases that anxiety. So too is his deafening silence and the shortness of his speech tonight. The East German secret police is a less secretive organisation than the Department of Economic Development is on the question of privatisation and the electricity costs that it expects.
We need to know about the effect of privatisation on electricity supplies in the Province, particularly with reference to the Kilroot 2 project. The costs are escalating, and the need to comply with the EEC directive on gas emissions from power stations will further increase the cost of Kilroot 2. Clearly, there are substantial financial implications which will affect the terms of privatisation and the future of the electricity industry about which the Government have not been sufficiently forthcoming.
I should like to put several points to the Minister which I hope that he will answer at the end of this short debate. Are the Government still determined to go ahead with Kilroot 2? What is its estimated cost and how will it be paid for? Which anti-pollution measures will be adopted? Will low-sulphur content or high-sulphur content fuel be used? How will that particular provision be paid for? When can we expect Kilroot 2 to come on stream, and will the cost be borne by the taxpayers directly or by the new company and thus the consumer? What are the Government's plans for interconnectors or a linked interconnector, either with the Republic of Ireland or Scotland, or both? What effect will the interconnectors have on the cost of Kilroot 2 and the cost of electricity for industrial and domestic consumers?
Will the Minister confirm that the tariff link will be maintained, or will it be broken, as most people expect, at the start of the next financial year? Does he accept the need for action to protect industrial and domestic consumers and to give them reasonable price stability? Which, if any, of the various options of consumer protection does he intend to support—direct subsidy, Government guarantee or nothing?
The Minister has an opportunity to allay some of the fears which the Government's behaviour is inciting, but so far he has not taken it. Unfortunately, the circumstances in which this order has been presented to us do not inspire confidence in the Government's handling of the electricity issue as a whole. The order is a reminder of how remote the Government have become from the economic difficulties of the Province.
Northern Ireland needs an effective and efficient energy policy. The Government should think again and formulate their policies for the 1990s on the basis of economic realities in the Province, not on the discredited dogmas of the Thatcherite 1980s which have caused so much harm to industries in the Province.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: When the Department published the draft order for consultation in May, did the hon. Gentleman or any of his right hon. and hon. Friends respond to it? I should be interested to know. Some of the hon. Gentleman's accusations do not lie full square with the facts.

Mr. McNamara: It is for the Government to produce and justify a scheme, and to give us opportunities to examine it. They should not take action and then cook up ideas to justify it, which is what they are doing now.
Many organisations, including the CBI and the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, hope that serious debate and consideration of the real issues will take place. So far the order has not given us that opportunity. We have not seen the papers before the Northern Ireland electricity service, the discussion documents or the options on which the decision is being made. Until we have them, we shall have an argument about Government suggestions in the dark. We should have had a Green Paper on energy policy for Northern Ireland, not the vague promise of a White Paper after the decision has already been made.
Far from making a genuine contribution to the future of Northern Ireland's energy supplies, the order works actively against the prospects of such a policy. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that my right hon. and hon. Friends will invite the House to reject the motion.

Mr. Roy Beggs: The House sits yet again to participate in the charade that continues as we deal with Northern Ireland business through Order in Council procedure. Right hon. and hon. Members know that old and famous quotation,
The moving finger writes; and having writ, moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.
If we replace the word "finger" with "Secretary of State" the words would aptly apply to this objectionable, unacceptable method of dealing with Northern Ireland affairs and to the futility of all our efforts to change this order. The combined efforts of all right hon. and hon. Members present cannot produce the slightest change in this or any other order. That fact has been acknowledged in the past by some Tory Members.
The order prepares the way for privatisation of the electricity supply in Northern Ireland. The Government's aim in privatising the supply of electricity in Great Britain was to maintain a diversity of supply and to strike a balance between the interests of taxpayers, customers and future shareholders. The Government have had second thoughts on privatising the nuclear energy industry. They recognised that the cost of underwriting the private sector to take over nuclear power stations would have effectively retained those stations in the public sector. Privatisation would have been in name only. As a result, the privatisation of nuclear power stations was abandoned.
As the Government proceed towards privatising electricity supply in Northern Ireland, perhaps the

Minister will tell us how he expects to achieve diversity of supply and how competition will be introduced. Can either he or the Secretary of State ensure that Northern Ireland industry and consumers will not be held to ransom on prices for future supplies and on the supply controlled from Dublin by the electricity supply board for the Irish Republic? Will the Minister assure us that there are no plans for the foreseeable future to break the tariff link with Great Britain on electricity prices for Northern Ireland consumers? The tariff link at least held prices in Northern Ireland to the same level as the highest tariff rated region in the United Kingdom.
Will the privatised monopoly supplier, whether it is Northern Ireland Electricity or some other similar body, be required to take up surplus production from, for example, hydro-electric generating plants already in the private sector and at prices fixed at an economic level by an independent body? We would all like to know how competitive private generation of electricity in Northern Ireland will be encouraged and promoted.
Has interest been expressed through the Anglo-Irish Conference about the possibility of the southern Irish electricity board acquiring NIE? There is concern in Northern Ireland about future prices, especially when profit making and profit taking for shareholders primarily motivates those managing the electricity supply industry.
Why are the Government not realising the economies that would arise from the reinstatement of the interconnector with the Irish Republic? Why has there not been an interconnection between Northern Ireland and Scotland such as that which has been provided to the Scilly Isles? An interconnection between Northern Ireland and Scotland would be less expensive a project than the supply of electricity to the Scilly Isles, and many more consumers would benefit.
Why has no decision yet been made for the dual firing for oil and coal conversion at Kilroot phase 2?
What are the reasons for delay in approving a lignite-fuelled power station in Northern Ireland? Would the reinstatement of the interconnector between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland open up Northern Ireland to competition from the Irish Republic?
Substantial investment is needed now to modernise the electricity industry in Northern Ireland. Environmental pollution should be reduced to European Community standards now, and Northern Ireland should now be connected to cheaper generating sources in Great Britain. The conversion of Kilroot phase 2 should proceed and a decision to utilise the lignite resource should be made now.
Privatising the electricity supply in Northern Ireland without guarantees that we will not become totally dependent on or have our electricity supply controlled by the southern Irish Government or the electricity supply board in the Republic is unacceptable. Without guarantees that the Government through tariff linkage will maintain reasonable prices, privatisation will be harmful to Northern Ireland industry and electricity will become more expensive to consumers.
Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), we feel obliged to vote against the order for the reasons that have been stated. It is an outrage that a matter of such importance to Northern Ireland can be decided by the stroke of a pen and without a full and meaningful debate. Many Northern Ireland Members


absent themselves deliberately and will not by their presence give a veneer of respectability to Order in Council debates.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: This flimsy one-page order belies the extent of the powers that it confers on Northern Ireland Electricity and on the Department of Economic Development. In his introductory speech the Minister seemed to be saying that it conferred no new powers, yet the order states:
Where the Department is at any time proposing that any assets or functions of Northern Ireland Electricity
should be transferred, it may take the necessary powers. Paragraph 3(3) states that
it may also do anything which in its opinion is appropriate for the purpose of promoting the interests of … any body corporate to which it is proposed to transfer the assets or functions".
I have never come across a piece of legislation that gives such sweeping administrative powers to either a Department or a state industry as those two short paragraphs. They seem to give the Department and the NIES carte blanche to do what they wish in the coming months, in advance of proposed substantive legislation that the House may or may not debate.
We in Northern Ireland have two primary concerns. First, we are concerned about the interests of the taxpayer, and about how public assets are to be transferred to the private sector. Even more important perhaps is the fact that—as other hon. Members have pointed out—the consumer will inevitably be faced with increased costs. While the taxpayer may experience a one-off loss as a result of the actual transfer, the consumer will pay for the transaction year after year.
We now know that the Department has been fattening the calf for slaughter. Over the past few years, percentage increases in Northern Ireland's tariff charges have greatly exceeded both the increase in inflation and the increase in primary fuel costs—which last, in fact, had been decreasing. Our first concern, therefore, must be for the consumer and not for the profit-oriented corporation or company that will take over electricity supply.
Let there be no doubt: there will be a monopoly, and the Northern Irish community will be held ransom to it. Even under state control, that monopoly was exercised under a political banner. In 1972, when Stormont fell, the energy supply was withdrawn from Northern Ireland's private, public and industrial consumers, and in 1974 the so-called workers' strike had the same effect. Subsequent turns of the political wheel caused the state monopoly to exercise its muscle by again withdrawing supply from consumers. What, then, will happen when state control is ended and the private company can exercise the enormous monopoly power that it will gain, not only in terms of trade and prices but in political terms?
Here we have a paradox. In 1973 it was argued that the private electricity companies should be amalgamated for the sake of efficiency, rationalisation and economy; now, 15 or 16 years later, it is argued that for those very reasons NIE should be dismantled. On 21 July, Financial Weekly published an in-depth article stating that Northern Ireland

Electricity would be transferred en bloc to a private corporation or company which would generate, transmit and distribute Northern Ireland's total electricity supply.
The Government are making obeisance to the holy cow of privatisation. They are blindly pursuing a dogma that the circumstances do not fit: the circumstances should not allow one and a quarter million people to put up with privatisation aimed—if the Minister's argument is correct —at a diversity of generation, transmission and distribution. By whose authority—if I may be so presumptuous as to ask—is this happening? In a survey carried out by the Northern Ireland Consumer Council, only 4 per cent. of those questioned said that they were strongly in favour of privatisation, and only another 17 per cent. said that they tended to support it. Four out of five people in Northern Ireland oppose electricity privatisation. Who, therefore, in Northern Ireland has authorised such a transfer?
The fifth report of the Energy Select Committee makes two interesting points in paragraph 12 on page 8 that must be dealt with by the Minister. It points out that in Northern Ireland there is no real competition from other fuel sources. Furthermore, there is no piped gas in Northern Ireland, even in the city of Belfast. That will lead to an even greater monopoly by the new body. The Committee recommended that very stringent regulations must be applied and said that strict regulations would negate privatisation. However, the Department says that this is the rational and reasonable way forward. It pays homage to a sacred cow.
Does the Minister intend to privatise sectarian practices in Northern Ireland Electricity? In 1982, 10 years after the imposition of direct rule, 4 per cent. of those who belonged to minority religious groups were in senior management; in middle management there were 3 per cent., only 3·5 per cent. among senior directors and only 9·5 per cent. in all in engineering grades. The Minister is just as aware as I am that substantial lawsuits are pending against Northern Ireland Electricity for sectarian practices and procedures when awarding contracts. I wonder who will inherit that can of worms? Efforts have been made to improve the position, but we are a long way from a real improvement.
Our primary concern is the plight of the consumer. Electricity is expensive in Northern Ireland. However, many people do not yet have electricity. It costs the ordinary householder £3,000 to £4,000 to instal electricity. How much will it cost him when there is a private sector monopoly?
The price of energy will rise under the new regime. The Northern Ireland industry operates on the north-western limit of the European Economic Community. Its margins are tight. As energy costs increase, the number of jobs that will be lost will also increase.
We cannot amend the order. It paves the way for an Order in Council. I question why we should stand here night after night talking about the problems of Northern Ireland if we have no opportunity to amend legislation. Tomorrow we shall debate an order that will affect the education of children in Northern Ireland. Again we shall be unable to change the Order in Council. It is an absolute disgrace that Northern Ireland affairs should be administered in such a way.
For those reasons, all Northern Ireland Members will oppose the order.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I shall begin with a few brief procedural matters. The substantive issues about paving the way for electricity privatisation in Northern Ireland are important, but they have been mentioned by other hon. Members. I hope that the serious questions posed by those hon. Members will be answered by the Minister.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) described the order as flimsy, but highly significant. It is a paving measure that is equivalent to the paving measure for electricity privatisation in the rest of the United Kingdom—the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988. That measure was fully debated on Second Reading and followed the full procedure of the House in its subsequent Report stages and amendments. Contrast that with the measure before us tonight, which has had none of those opportunities.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that we want a devolved Government in Northern Ireland, with a Bill of Rights attached to it. In the meantime, while we await that legislation, Northern Ireland measures should be dealt with on a basis similar to other measures in the House. There should be full opportunity for debate, and proper timing of the issues to give us the chance to discuss them.
The paving measure adds provisions to the Electricity Supply (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, which was a complex measure in six parts, with 52 clauses and five schedules.
The schedules cover subjects such as the constitution of the Northern Ireland electricity board, as it was called, superannuation, the Electricity Consumers Council, and an electricity supply code. All those measures will be affected by the paving development, and all of them will begin to be subject to adjustment under the provisions for a future order that may be brought before us. There are 64 pages in the order, and it is as bad as the order that we shall debate tomorrow night on education.
The previous order on Northern Ireland electricity supply was debated on 7 July 1987. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the time, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), said:
This has been described as a most controversial draft order and the forerunner to privatisation of electricity in Great Britain. Those criticisms are utterly misconceived. It is nothing of the sort.
Presumably something of the sort would have been thought to have been a bad thing. Therefore, this order should be considered a bad thing. He continued:
The draft order works broadly on the lines of the Energy Act 1983 and permits the private generation of electricity in Northern Ireland in much the same way as that Act permits it for Great Britain.
Later in the same debate the hon. Gentleman said:
The order will enable private generation of electricity and NIE is already under a statutory obligation to acquire electricity at the most advantageous price from the point of view of the consumer."—[Official Report, 7 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 301–02.]
Members of Parliament representing constituencies in Northern Ireland refused to participate in that debate. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a point of order stating that they would not be involved, although later they were involved in the Division Lobbies. In that debate, speeches were made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr.

Archer), the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). There was also an intervention by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). That was the extent of the debate as hon. Members from Northern Ireland were not there to speak. That shows the low level of involvement in the debate.
The order had 21 articles, covered 16 pages and referred to six other orders or Acts of Parliament, one of which went back to 1933 and was being amended by the order. I hope that tonight the Division Lobbies will reflect the strength of feeling on that occasion, when there were 236 votes in favour and 201 against the order, giving the Government a majority of only 35. I do not know whether we have fallen back in our strength of feeling about Northern Ireland issues since then.
The order is the forerunner of a Northern Ireland electricity privatisation order, not a Bill. It is equivalent to the Electricity Act 1989, which we debated at considerable length. It had 113 clauses, 18 schedules and covered 164 pages. I am confused about how we decide which is to be an order and which is to be a Bill. We have had Northern Ireland Bills such as that which became the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. It went through the appropriate stages in the House. This measure is equally important and foreshadows something of shattering significance, but it will be dealt with by this wholly inadequate procedure.
I wish that more hon. Members were present when we discuss paving measures that are the stuff of politics and of day-to-day concern in Northern Ireland. Labour Members are often vociferous about the problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland, but do not contribute to debates on day-to-day affairs.
In the debate of 7 July 1987, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West described the problems with this procedure far better than I can when he said:
I want to begin by placing on record the view that this is not a responsible way for a democratic Government to behave. The procedure places everyone under an impossible pressure of time and it discourages some hon. Members from contributing. It offers no opportunity for discussions on detail. It manifests a contempt for Northern Ireland and for this House. And it strips away all pretence that the Government retain an open mind to the arguments."—[Official Report, 7 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 302.]
I fully endorse those sentiments and look forward to the day when Northern Ireland issues are given correct consideration in the House and in Northern Ireland itself.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
After that slashing attack by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on his colleagues who do not seem to be interested in the social and economic welfare of Northern Ireland, may I say that, in view of the remarks of some Opposition Members, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health for coming in to ensure that no patching is needed.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) asked whether we intend to sell off Northern Ireland Electricity to the electricity supply board in the south. The answer is


no. There is no intention to sell it to a publicly-owned utility in another country. The Government's clear aim is to privatise the business.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) have been present throughout the debate, but they have allowed most of the comment to be made by their colleagues. There may be some sedentary interventions from them as I speak, but I hope not to provoke too many.
The Government believe that lignite is certain to be used for electricity generation in due course, but after more economic projects. Last year the Government decided that Kilroot 2 was more attractive economically than a new lignite station, so that should be carried out first. One of the essential elements of privatisation is to make sure that decisions are taken in the best interests of private consumers rather than as a result of political pressures. Those who had the opportunity of watching the "Counterpoint" programme will agree that that was one of the points it left out. It is important to recognise the interests of consumers throughout, rather than to use a researcher's good notes.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). His researchers provided him with some good notes, although they took no account of what I said, apart from refering to the fact that he spoke for longer than I did. That was predictable, which is no doubt why it was part of his speech.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Bottomley: I seem to have provoked the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he should think twice before intervening.

Mr. McNamara: I spoke for longer than the Minister did because I had more and better things to say than he did. Will he answer the points that I raised about the future of Kilroot? Is it going according to plan? Are the costs as originally envisaged or are they greater? What will be done about the gas emissions? The Minister has to answer those questions. They are not matters of research; they are matters of environmental concern in Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and Europe. They affect the quality of life and the standard of living of people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman decided to intervene before I had got through more than two lines of my speech so that he could repeat some of the points he made in his own speech. That may be his way of operating, but if he can wait perhaps I shall give him some answers.
I have dealt with lignite. Perhaps the most important point is the separation between the order and what will follow. I was asked whether the Government still intend to produce a White Paper on the privatisation proposals. The answer is yes. It is important to ensure that Northern Ireland Electricity should be able to contribute to the process of deciding what the proposals should be. If only part of article 3 is considered it provides wider powers than are currently available. I refer to part of the speech by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady).
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked about the cost of Kilroot 2. The power station will cost about £215 million at 1989 prices, about £95 million

more for the flue gas desulphurisation if required. I was asked who will pay for Kilroot 2. The customer will pay, whoever owns the electricity service, whether it is private or public.
I was asked about the tariff link. The changes to area boards in England and Wales and the way in which Northern Ireland has derived tariffs under the link arrangements mean that it is right to review the link. When the companies produce the conclusions to that review, they will make them public. It would be wrong to anticipate the results, in the same way as it is wrong to assume that the link always works in the interest of consumers.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East asked about the reinstatement of the interconnector with the south. I do not think that that interconnector has proved durable in the past, so we should not automatically replace it. The question arises whether it is better to have an interconnector or whether to bring forward Kilroot 2 early. The preliminary results of a current study suggest that there may be advantages to providing new capacity by means of an interconnector with the Great Britain grid. The Government must try to make the most beneficial arrangements for electricity supply in Northern Ireland. We propose to consider that option in more detail before deciding on the timing of Kilroot 2. In the meantime, the action which Northern Ireland Electricity is taking on Kilroot 2 will ensure that construction can begin at short notice if required. That is a comprehensive and proper description of the situation. Nothing should be done which works against the consumers of electricity in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McGrady: Except privatisation.

Mr. Bottomley: People keep talking about privatisation and accusing the Government of trying artificially to distort the decisions that the electricity industry has to make. One of the advantages of privatisation is that we move away from that to a clear regulatory system, which makes up for any deficiencies there may be in terms of competition. A decision has not been made as to the form of privatisation. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) who has been here throughout the debate.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Before my hon. Friend leaves the point about the possibility of an interconnector with the national grid, will he say who will pay for it if it is decided to go ahead with it?

Mr. Bottomley: In essence, the consumer, but if there were commercial advantages to the Great Britain grid—if it could sell electricity that would not otherwise have a customer—one assumes that the balance would be worked out between the two supply networks. It is wrong to assume that Northern Ireland will carry the cost of commercial advantage to people outside Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said that privatisation was bad and unpopular, but I remember the same remarks being made a week ago about water privatisation; we are hearing a little less about that now. I suspect that privatisation will be popular in Northern Ireland with consumers, potential shareholders and those who work in the industry, who should like to have a chance of owning part of their own business. It is worth remembering that there are now more shareholders in the


United Kingdom than trade union members, and I speak as someone who is rather more of a trade union member than a shareholder.
I do not intend to go into the issues about private monopolies that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. North raised.
The hon. Member for South Down asked about competition for fuel. Northern Ireland Electrictity reckons that 50 per cent. of its load in things such as space heating and water heating is open to competition. Consumers—not every individual consumer—have other fuels available, and in general bottled gas, coal and oil are competitive with the supply of electricity.

Mr. McGrady: Is the Minister suggesting that the consumer in Northern Ireland should go back to gas light?

Mr. Bottomley: I was not suggesting that. I was trying to give the information that Northern Ireland Electrictity has supplied.
I want to emphasise that the order is not a substitute for the privatisation proposals but a way of ensuring that Northern Ireland Electricity can contribute to the development of them.
Many more people are moving to the use of electricity. I shall give an example that may be small to the House, but it is important to the 60,000 consumers who over the past six years have moved to Economy 7 for their space and water heating. Electricity is important to people in Northern Ireland, its industry, its domestic consumers and its agricultural sector. I am giving much attention to electricity supply in the rural sector under the rural policy initiative, which I hope will be welcomed throughout the House.
I commend the order to the House. It is an important paving order so that privatisation can go forward.

Question put:-

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 171.

Division No. 15]
[10.27 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Amess, David
Chope, Christopher


Amos, Alan
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arbuthnot, James
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Conway, Derek


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkinson, David
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Durant, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Sir Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bellingham, Henry
Evennett, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fallon, Michael


Benyon, W.
Favell, Tony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boswell, Tim
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Forth, Eric


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fox. Sir Marcus


Bright, Graham
Franks, Cecil


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Freeman, Roger


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
French, Douglas


Buck, Sir Antony
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garel-Jones, Tristan





Gill, Christopher
Neale, Gerrard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Neubert, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gow, Ian
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Norris, Steve


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Page, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Paice, James


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patnick, Irvine


Grist, Ian
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hague, William
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pawsey, James


Hanley, Jeremy
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Portillo, Michael


Harris, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Haselhurst, Alan
Redwood, John


Hayes, Jerry
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Rhodes James, Robert


Hayward, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Heddle, John
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Rowe, Andrew


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hind, Kenneth
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Howard, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shelton, Sir William


Hunter, Andrew
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Irvine, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jack, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Janman, Tim
Sims, Roger


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Speed, Keith


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Speller, Tony


Key, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Squire, Robin


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knapman, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stern, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knox, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Latham, Michael
Stokes, Sir John


Lawrence, Ivan
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sumberg, David


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Summerson, Hugo


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lilley, Peter
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thornton, Malcolm


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Thurnham, Peter


Maclean, David
Tracey, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Viggers, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Walden, George


Madel, David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Major, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Malins, Humfrey
Ward, John


Mans, Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Maples, John
Warren, Kenneth


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wheeler, John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Whitney, Ray


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wilshire, David


Mellor, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Miller, Sir Hal
Wood, Timothy


Miscampbell, Norman
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Yeo, Tim


Mitchell, Sir David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Monro, Sir Hector



Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. David Lightbown.


Mudd, David







NOES


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Alton, David
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Donald
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dewar, Donald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dixon, Don


Ashton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Doran, Frank


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barron, Kevin
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Battle, John
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Beckett, Margaret
Eadie, Alexander


Beggs, Roy
Eastham, Ken


Beith, A. J.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fatchett, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew


Blair, Tony
Fearn, Ronald


Blunkett, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boyes, Roland
Flannery, Martin


Bradley, Keith
Flynn, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Galloway, George


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce


Buckley, George J.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Caborn, Richard
Gordon, Mildred


Callaghan, Jim
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hardy, Peter


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Doug


Clay, Bob
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Harry
Hood, Jimmy


Coleman, Donald
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoyle, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ingram, Adam


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Crowther, Stan
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cummings, John
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cunningham, Dr John
Lambie, David


Darling, Alistair
Lamond, James





Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, George


Leighton, Ron
Rogers, Allan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Litherland, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Salmond, Alex


McAllion, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


McCartney, Ian
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Macdonald, Calum A.
Short, Clare


McGrady, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Madden, Max
Soley, Clive


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Steinberg, Gerry


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Straw, Jack


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maxton, John
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Michael, Alun
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Vaz, Keith


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wall, Pat


Morgan, Rhodri
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morley, Elliot
Wareing, Robert N.


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Murphy, Paul
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Nellist, Dave
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


O'Brien, William
Wilson, Brian


Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Worthington, Tony


Pike, Peter L.
Wray, Jimmy


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Prescott, John



Quin, Ms Joyce
Tellers for the Noes:


Randall, Stuart
Mr Frank Cook and


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Mrs. Llin Golding.


Reid, Dr John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Electricity Supply (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 24th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Ministerial and Other Salaries

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move,
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.
I hope that, as previously this evening, I need not detain the House for long on this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hear a menacing noise from the Opposition Benches below the Gangway. I hope that the menace is of a gentle kind. I shall outline briefly the changes that we are proposing and will hope to deal at the end of the debate with any other points requiring an answer.
As the House knows, under the terms of the resolution of 21 July 1987, all hon. Members will receive an increase in their parliamentary salary on 1 January 1990 which will amount to £2,594, of which £1,027 represents the final stage of the 1988–89 settlement for the Civil Service grade to which parliamentary salaries are linked. The increase in the parliamentary salary for 1989 is 6·9 per cent.
On Friday 1 December, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), I announced our intention that Ministers and paid office holders should each receive the same total cash increase as all other hon. Members, £2,594, from the same date, 1 January 1990. I set out in my written answer and in the order the revised salaries proposed for Ministers and paid office holders. The average increase in the ministerial pay bill resulting from the proposals is 6·5 per cent. —

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Too low.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is expressing some interesting variations in points of view—[Interruption] I am unnerved. Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The average increase in total salaries in the House, parliamentary and ministerial, will be about 6 per cent. and the average increase in the other place will be a little over 7·5 per cent. The percentage increase for their Lordships is higher because the salaries of Ministers and paid office holders in the other place are significantly lower than those in this House, but all Ministers and paid office holders will receive the same cash increase, and I repeat that the total average increase will be 6·5 per cent.
In detail, the proposals that the order will implement will be as follows. All Ministers and paid office holders in this House will receive an increase of £641 in their official salary. Taking into account the increase of £1,953 in their reduced parliamentary salaries, which they receive automatically on 1 January 1990, this means that they will receive a total increase—remarkably, the same total increase—of £2,594. That is the same as all other hon. Members will receive in their salaries.
In the other place we propose that Ministers and paid office holders should receive the full £2,594 as an increase in their official salary. They, of course, have no separate parliamentary salary to be taken into account. The total increase in salaries for Ministers and paid office holders in both Houses amounts to over £120,000, which, as I have said, represents 6·5 per cent. on the pay bill.
I believe that our proposals represent a modest, fair and realistic conclusion. They are fully consistent with our anti-inflationary policies, and I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: As a lifelong trade unionist, may I say that there are certain aspects of the order that I find encouraging and surprising in the Government's attitude. For example, this salary increase is an emphtatic rejection of what Ministers frequently say when talking about the pay claims of other people. It represents an emphatic rejection of market forces as an important determinant of wage rates.
The Prime Minister, who is fond of using that as an argument for other people's pay rates, would not dream of applying it as a principle to the determination of her own. We know of at least one other person who is anxious to do her job. I have not checked with the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), but I have reason to believe that he would do the right hon. Lady's job for less money. I am sure that many Conservative Members would do it for a great deal less, and I fear that some might even agree to pay us so that they could do it. But, rightly, market forces have been rejected as a basis for the payment of salaries in this case.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: If the hon. Gentleman's argument holds any water, how would he explain salaries of £250,000, £300,000 and even £450,000 a year for presenting television programmes on BBC or ITV? Even for political programmes people are paid £300,000 to £400,000 a year. There are, I am sure, many people in the House who would love to do those jobs for much less money.

Mr. Grocott: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is absurd for salaries of that magnitude to be paid when they have nothing to do with the application of market forces. Clearly other forces are at work in determining such salaries.
It is interesting to note that there is no suggestion in the Government's proposals that the pay of those concerned should be determined by whether they come from a low-wage area. After all, Conservative Members often say that we should scrap national agreements. Accordingly, if Ministers or other Members come from areas of lower wages, presumably they should accept the prevailing pay rates in those areas. I am glad that such a concept is rejected in the order, and I, too, reject it.
I like the way in which the Government are observing the principles of collective agreements—in other words, that people's pay rates should not be determined by individual deals with the boss. I hope that Conservative Members will use what influence they have in the current industrial dispute affecting Associated Newspapers Group Limited and journalists on The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and The Evening Standard and that they will reject the management proposals to scrap all collective agreements—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is referring to people who cannot possibly come within the scope of the order.

Mr. Grocott: I simply hope that Conservative Members who are tonight supporting principles of collective bargaining will remember those principles when other matters come before the House.
The Leader of the House frequently referred to 6·5 per cent. I hardly need remind the House that people pay their grocery bills not with percentages but with pounds and


that 6·5 per cent. of a large salary is very different from 6·5 per cent. of, for example, an ambulance man's or woman's salary. That figure of 6·5 per cent. is the most that has been offered to them and, in the light of what will be happening later this week, I hope that Conservative Members will think more in terms of the amount of money on offer as a weekly increase and less in terms of percentage rises.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On this occasion the Government have taken exactly the right decision by keeping ministerial salary increases, although they may be well earned, below the rate of inflation. If everybody has wage increases up to the rate of inflation, next year inflation will be higher, so the ratchet principle operates and the spiral of inflation is never broken. I applaud the Government on their decision.
I have never heard such flawed, silly arguments as we heard tonight from the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). [HON. MEMBERS: "We hear them every day."] My colleagues say that they hear them every day. I know, but one tries to shut them out.
If a Minister were in Birmingham, Newcastle or Huddersfield—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about Macclesfield?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Macclesfield is far too good for most of us.
What if salaries were based on a different system? Why cannot the hon. Gentleman see that we should encourage prosperity to seep beyond the midlands to the north and north-east? A house which in Huddersfield or Sheffield might cost £50,000 would cost £90,000 in Birmingham and£150,000 in London. National wage bargaining, whether for Ministers or workers on the factory floor, produces huge distortions, and that is what causes great trouble. It is not Government grants that create prosperity, but sensible, natural market forces.

Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. Friend believe that the discrepancy between Back-Benchers' pay and ministerial pay should be reduced, maintained or increased?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has brought up the subject of Members' pay.

Mr. Hanley: I asked about the discrepancy in pay.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Hon. Members may think that they can get away with fixing their salaries to that of someone else and saying, "It's not me, guy", but that is not something that people fully understand.
Tonight I heard that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has decided, unfortunately, to leave the House and that 953 people would like to succeed to his constituency. I have a hunch that, even if our salaries were halved, 950 would still like to succeed him.
If the House is to lead the people forward to prosperity, the one great certainly is that there must be pay differentials. In that way people will be encouraged to move to the north because there is a greater sense of prosperity. On that basis the Government's decision to grant increases below the rate of inflation is on the right lines. Unless we kill inflation, we shall never get the

country firmly and properly on the move. That is why this evening I intend to support the motion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I know that others wish to speak, so I shall say a few words in support of the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The amendment has not been selected. That would be out of order.

Mr. Salmond: I wholly accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although the amendment has not been called for debate, surely it is in order to discuss its content.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me see how we get on.

Mr. Salmond: There is an anomaly in proposing ministerial salary increases, especially in the case of the Leader of the House, when there is a blatant failure to observe the Standing Orders of the House. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) were recently deemed to have fallen foul of the Standing Orders and our punishment was to be expelled from the premises for five days. Standing Order No. 130 is quite specific that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs shall be established. That order is being blatantly breached, yet its custodian and the Minister responsible for its enforcement, rather than being punished for not abiding by it, or at least arranging for the House to keep to its Standing Orders, is to be rewarded by a salary increase of £2,554.
Our amendment proposed to cut the salary of the Leader of the House by £1,000. Many people would say that that cut was too modest given the punishment meted out to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Govan for not obeying Standing Orders. It might have been argued, had our amendment been selected, that the Leader of the House should have experienced a punishment more severe than a salary cut of £1,000. I and my hon. Friends are reasonable people and we acknowledge that in the past year the Leader of the House has experienced some uncertainty in his domestic circumstances because of ministerial changes. We do not want to impose an additional burden or strain on the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
A reasonable question can be asked about our attempt to oppose the increase in the salaries of Ministers in general and the Leader of the House in particular. We could ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman responsible for the failure of Scottish Back-Bench Tories to serve on a Select Committee—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that argument. He is getting away from the motion that is before the House and discussing the amendment that Mr. Speaker ruled out of order.

Mr. Jim Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was the amendment not selected, as distinct from being ruled out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had made it clear that Mr. Speaker ruled that the amendment was out of order.

Mr. Salmond: The answer to the question of whether ministerial salaries should be approved will depend on whether we are satisfied that Ministers are pursuing their responsibilities in an effective manner. Therefore, it must be in order to debate whether the Leader of the House is pursuing his responsibilities in an effective manner. Surely one of those responsibilities is to see that the House abides by its Standing Orders and we are entitled to ask whether he is personally responsible for the failure to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs or whether the responsibility lies elsewhere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Obviously the hon. Gentleman can refer to the conduct of the Leader of the House, but he is not entitled to embark on a discussion about the merits or otherwise of the failure of the Leader of the House to set up that or any other Select Committee. That is where the hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Salmond: Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the question of whether the Leader of the House is pursuing his responsibilities in an effective manner is surely central to the question of whether the House grants him a salary increase of more than £2,500. If we are not entitled to examine the conduct of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, not just on the matter of setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs but on the range of his responsibilities, how are we meant to debate the motion that is before the House?

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Would the hon. Gentleman follow through the logic of his argument by accepting that if an hon. Member does not turn up for a certain percentage of votes that hon. Member should have a cut in salary?

Mr. Salmond: Of course we are not discussing the salaries of hon. Members. In a Scottish television programme I was unexpectedly revealed as the Scottish Member with the best record of attendance for Scottish issues, far higher than the attendance record of the hon. Lady. However, not for a second would I suggest that I should be paid more than the hon. Lady.
Let me return to the question of whether the Leader of the House is pursuing his responsibilities effectively and is therefore justified in receiving a salary increase of £2,500. Surely the House is entitled to establish whether he is responsible for not carrying out his duties, or whether the responsibility lies elsewhere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must repeat that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take up too much time by seeking to debate this matter with me. He is entitled to say that, because of the conduct of the Leader of the House or any other Minister, he will withhold his support for a proposed salary increase, but he cannot go into details. If that were allowed, we should find ourselves examining in detail the conduct of every Minister in every Department, which would clearly not be in order on a motion such as this. I hope that hon. Members will stick to the motion, and not discuss amendments that Mr. Speaker has declared to be out of order.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we have to approve the order, surely it is in order for hon. Members to say why they do not approve. That, I feel, is at the heart of what is being said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is coming dangerously close to debating my ruling, and he must not do that. I hope that he and his hon. Friends will observe my ruling, and not seek either to challenge or to debate it.

Mr. Salmond: To oppose a salary increase for the entire ministerial team, I must be able to pass some comment on why I do not think that its members deserve such an increase. My hon. Friends and I will certainly oppose this unwarranted increase in the Lobby tonight, and I am sure that the House will be very interested in our justification for that opposition. I must therefore be allowed to pursue my argument about why the Leader of the House—or any other Minister—is not doing his job effectively.

Sir Hal Miller: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite taken on board the fact that, if he opposed the order successfully, Ministers would receive more money than they would otherwise. That is a curious way for him to show his disapproval.

Mr. Salmond: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would therefore wish me to pursue my argument and to justify the placing of a question mark over these salary increases, be they the increases mentioned in the order or those that would apply if it were not carried. There is no doubt in my mind that the conduct of the Leader of the House does not match the way in which we expect Ministers to perform their duties if such large increases are to be justified.
The question is this—and I will accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a Minister, has the Leader of the House a special responsibility for saying that the House is able to follow its own Standing Orders? I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are a keen enforcer of those Standing Orders, as indeed you must be. It must surely be a serious matter that reflects on the appropriateness of a ministerial salary increase, if it is established that the Leader of the House is in some way responsible for failing to enforce one of its own Standing Orders, Standing Order No. 130. Surely that must influence the question of whether Ministers are entitled to a large increase, a modest increase or any increase at all.
Some people have argued that the fact that Standing Order No. 130 has not been enforced is not the responsibility of the Leader of the House, but that of other hon. Members. If that were so, Opposition Members could have no objection to an increase in the salary of the Leader of the House or that of any other Minister. Let us consider., however, the operation organised by the usual channels to try to ensure the political survival of the Prime Minister—backed enthusiastically, no doubt, by the Leader of the House and other Ministers—by cajoling and pressuring Conservative Back Benchers into giving their loyal support. Have the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues put the same effort into persuading and cajoling Back Benchers to assist the House in obeying Standing Order No. 130? I hope that the Leader of the House, who I am sure is paying rapt attention to the debate on ministerial salary increases, will deal with that point. It is a ministerial responsibility to establish the Scottish Select Committee and, according to Standing Orders, there is no requirement that there should be an automatic Government majority on Select Committees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in order for the hon. Gentleman to say that he does not intend to support the


motion because the Leader of the House has not, in his view, fulfilled his obligations under a particular Standing Order. However, it is not in order for the hon. Gentleman then to discuss in detail that particular failure, as he sees it, to implement the Standing Order. That is what I am ruling is out of order.

Mr. Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very kind of you to make my hon. Friend's speech for him, but if it was in order for him to say that the Leader of the House should not get a salary increase, or should have his salary cut because he had not obeyed Standing Order No. 130, surely it is in order for him to justify that allegation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not question my ruling. I said that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was entitled to express his view that a salary increase should be withheld from a particular Minister because of his failure to implement an obligation that, in his view, has been imposed upon him. He is not in order, however, to go into the details of that obligation. That has been said two or three times. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) will accept my ruling without seeking to debate it further.

Mr. Salmond: I do not wish to pursue my arguments against ministerial salary increases, but may I put a final and helpful suggestion to the Leader of the House that would enable him to fulfil his responsibilities to the House and keep within Standing Orders. I ask him to accept that no fewer than 40 Scottish Back Benchers are willing to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Therefore, the Select Committee could be set up forthwith. I commend that suggestion to him.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I have no particular wish to follow Mutt and Jeff, the barrack-room lawyers behind me, but there is a serious point to be made about the motion, without using trick language or ill-informed attempts to confuse. The result of dividing the House against the motion would lead to Ministers receiving more, not less money. That is somewhat confused thinking, even by the formidable standards of the Scottish National party.
Ever since it was first set up, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has had a tradition of boycott. Between 1980 and 1987 it was boycotted by the Scottish National party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard my earlier rulings. I hope that he does not intend to ignore them.

Mr. Wilson: That was a mere historical footnote. It was boycotted in the past by the Scottish National party, which since 1987 has developed an enthusiasm for it. The Leader of the House should have something docked off his pay every time he nods off. Since 1987 the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will speak to the Ministerial and other Salaries Order, which so far he has failed to do.

Mr. Wilson: What I am saying relates directly to the order. Part of the job of the Leader of the House, for which he is paid that salary and this increase, is to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Like his predecessor, he has consistently failed to do so. We are entitled, not under the guise of bogus procedure but as a point of political fact and political dispute, to say that he has failed in that purpose and to demand that when he comes to the Dispatch Box he should say when he intends to do his job.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I should like to bring the debate back to the point at issue, which is whether we should increase ministerial salaries.
The differential between the pay of Members of Parliament and Ministers is far too narrow. I have always voted against increases in hon. Members' pay, but I do not in any way object to Ministers' salaries because they have immense responsibilities in addition to their constituency responsibilities. I shall vote for this increase, as I have done consistently.

Mr. Jim Sillars: I shall speak plainly from the start. I believe that there is a fix by the establishment in this debate. There is no question about that whatever. There is a fix by the establishment to ensure that there is no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. There is a fix by the establishment to ensure that we cannot debate why there is no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not reflecting on Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments.

Mr. Sillars: That is a matter for your interpretation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not mine.
I repeat that there has been a fix by the establishment, and not for the first time, either. The strongest objections have to be made. I believe that I am entitled to argue, on a wide-ranging motion such as this, why I do not believe the motion should be carried.
One of those reasons is the inability, unwillingness, or perhaps deliberate unwillingness, of the Leader of the House to give effect to Standing Order No. 130 to ensure that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is set up. He is not entitled to a salary increase because he did not set up a Select Committee, under Standing Order No. 130, to consider school boards in Scotland, because he did not set up a Select Committee, under Standing Order No. 130, to enable it to examine the steel industry in Scotland, because he did not set up, under Standing Order No. 130, a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to examine environmental issues in Scotland, particularly Nirex, because he did not set up, under Standing Order No. 130, a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs which could examine water standards in Scotland, because he did not set up, under Standing Order No. 130, a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs which could examine in Glasgow the loss of £14 million this year and £16 million next year under the share formula that is operating in the National Health Service, or an examination of how the chairman of the Scottish Conservative party, who is a Minister—we are talking about ministerial salaries—appoints nobody but Tories to hospital boards all over Scotland.
It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the Leader of the House should not get a salary increase, and that no other Minister should get a salary increase, because of their failure to carry out Standing Order No. 130. Mr. Speaker wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) saying that setting up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is not the Leader of the House's responsibility and that
the resolution of 20th December 1988 excuses the Committee from taking such action".
That is a reference to the Committee of Selection acting under Standing Order No. 140. I have to disagree. I am sorry to offend Mr. Speaker. I believe that responsibility for Standing Order No. 130 rests squarely on the shoulders of the Leader of the House. He has failed to carry out his responsibilities to the Scottish people. If he looks way back to 1979, when this type of Select Committee was established, immediately after the Tories repealed the Scotland Act 1978, he will see that responsibility lies with the Government.
I believe that there has been a fix by the establishment. If the establishment is not prepared to stand by its own Standing Orders, it has a brass neck to expect us to stand by them. We will not do so and we shall take action at the appropriate time.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: It was not my intention to intrude in the private feud between the Socialists in the Labour party in Scotland and the Socialists in the Scottish National party. However, as the matter affects some of my right hon. and hon. Friends I feel that I should contribute to the debate.
I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House as I was not in the Chamber when he stated his case, and I hope that he will not consider my intervention to be a discourtesy.
I understand the argument that it is the Government's responsibility to set an example to the nation, and in many ways hon. Members fall short on that—perhaps Opposition Members more than Conservative Members. However, it is a mistake to imagine that reducing ministerial or other salaries will do anything to combat inflation. As monetarists on the Conservative Benches will know, inflation is driven not by wage demands but by too much money in the economy chasing too few goods. To suggest that restraining Members' or Ministers' pay would contribute greatly to the battle against inflation would be to mislead the House.
It is not my intention to set myself up as the trade union negotiator on behalf of the Cabinet or other Ministers. I understand that the chairman of the board is listening to representations from all sides; therefore there is no need for me to do that. However, we would be mistaken if we were to believe that we are currying favour by saying that we must restrain Ministers' pay and set an example and play ourselves down.
There is something bizarre about a nation which prides itself on being better managed than it ever was paying Secretaries of State £44,591 when we pay each chairman of the nationalised industries, for which one Secretary of State is reponsible, sums ranging between £90,000 and£200,000 depending upon whether his name is Bob Reid mark 1 or Bob Reid mark 2. It is bizarre that we should have such an extraordinary discrepancy that the man responsible for running one part of a business is paid

£200,000 and the man who has overall responsibility is paid £44,591, when the Prime Minister's salary is only£47,000. It is incumbent upon us to point out to people that that is bizarre.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Howarth: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not have anything helpful to say, but I shall give way to him.

Mr. Salmond: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of people falling down on their responsibilities and the relative value of individual Ministers, would he care to comment on the relative value of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who has been reducing his ministerial responsibilities so that he can assume the chairmanship of the Conservative party in Scotland? In the light of that reduction in his ministerial responsibilities, does he merit a ministerial salary increase this evening?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friends believe that my hon. Friend the Minister is grossly underpaid for the tasks that he performs in Scotland. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) should consider how much my hon. Friend would be able to earn were he able to offer his service to the marketplace. He is making a sacrifice on behalf of the nation. The Scottish people will come not only to be grateful for but proud of his achievements.
My right hon. Friends who are responsible for the remaining nationalised industries should be given an increase in their salaries for every industry that they dispose of and return to private ownership. For every penny off income tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be given an increase in salary. In that way, we might introduce the concept of competition and incentives into the highest levels of Government.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howarth: I will not give way because I believe that the House wishes to move to a Division. I note your assent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to that proposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) was not given an answer to his point about differentials. There is a considerable narrowing in the differentials between Ministers, of whatever rank, who are charged with an enormous and increasing work load. We ordinary, old, bloody infantry on the Back Benches do not believe that we serve any valuable purpose in allowing that to continue. Those who accept office make an increasing sacrifice, because they are normally younger people who have families and additional responsibilities.

Sir Hal Miller: What about the Montego?

Mr. Howarth: If my west midlands friend, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), honestly thinks that riding around in the back of a 1·6 Montego constitutes a great privilege, his sense of priorities are different from mine. It is interesting that suddenly the Opposition are changing their policies because they want to get their backsides on the back seat of a Montego 1·6L. That is the height of their ambitions.
I think that I have made my points, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has noted some of them.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The purpose of our opposition this evening is to make the point that the Leader of the House is not doing his work and does not deserve the salary that he receives.
My hon. Friends have said that the Select Committee on Scotland is needed. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ruled them out of order when they tried to give the reasons why it should be considering Scotland's environment, its steel industry, the crisis facing its fishing industry and a range of other issues. The Leader of the House has failed in his duty by not carrying out the Standing Orders of the House. It is ironic, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you tell hon. Members to obey the Standing Orders of the House, yet he cannot be told to obey those self-same Standing Orders.
In a letter to me, Mr. Speaker rightly pointed out that there are certain Standing Orders that he is duty-bound to follow because they lay obligations specifically on his shoulders, but there are other Standing Orders, such as Standing Order No. 130, which make it clear that there shall be a Scottish Select Committee. That is linked to Standing Order No. 104, which says that it is the duty of the Committee of Selection to produce that Committee. The Leader of the House is failing in his obligations to the Standing Orders by not implementing them. The resolution of 20 December merely said that the House recognises the inability of the Committee of Selection to produce the Committee. The Committee of Selection was not unable but unwilling to do so. The Leader of the House should implement the Standing Orders to be worthy of the salary that we are discussing.
The order concerns the rights and powers of Parliament to scrutinise the Executive. It is the duty of the Leader of the House to allow Back-Benchers to exercise proper scrutiny of the Administration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not fulfilled that duty, so how can he deserve his salary? The Scottish Office is the only major Department whose activities are not surveyed by a Select Committee. Such scrutiny is especially important given that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is chairman of the Scottish Conservative party as well as a Minister. The Leader of the House should give the House, through the Select Committee, the power to scrutinise the connection between party politics and the Executive. It is important to scrutinise what is happening, but at the minute Scotland is being denied that right.
The Leader of the House should be worthy of his hire, but he has failed the House and Scotland. The resolution of December 1988 applied to the previous Session. If its powers are to be exercised once more, that resolution should come before the House again. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to be worthy of his hire he should establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs so that Members representing Scotland have the opportunity to question Scottish Ministers. We cannot ask English Ministers about Scottish matters as that would be ruled out of order.
The Leader of the House should earn his money by doing right by Scotland. Members representing Scotland should have the right to scrutinise the Administration—[Interruption.] We should be free from such abuse. All English Members can do is shout as they have no interest in Scotland. When they turn out on occasions such as this it is akin to organised hooliganism.

Mr. Michael Brown: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I sat on the Committee that considered the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill earlier this year.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. I have been elected by the Scottish people, but I was not allowed to be a member of that Committee. He represents an English constituency and had no interest in the subject, yet he was a member of the Committee. That proves how little the House is willing to do for Scotland. The Conservatives, in organised collaboration and ably abetted by the Labour party, ensure that failure. It is about time that Scotland counted in this place, but that will probably never happen. We have the answer—we should return to our Parliament. The hon. Gentleman makes that case for us. I hope that the television cameras will show how little hon. Members representing England care about my country.
The Leader of the House should take such matters into account. He is a unionist and he wants to preserve the system whereby Scotland is meaningless. To earn his salary the right hon. and learned Gentleman should ensure that Scotland is taken into account. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is in his remit and he should prove that he is fulfilling his duty and earning his money. Mr. Speaker is not duty-bound by the relevant Standing Orders, but the Leader of the House should implement them. Surely he has some connection with the Committee of Selection, whose duty under the Standing Orders is to produce a Scottish Select Committee. We are bound by the Standing Orders and so should be the Leader of the House.
The Leader of the House should be worthy of his hire and he should do something, for once, for Scotland.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: As a life-long trade unionist, I believe that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and his colleagues have got it slightly wrong. There is a certain rate for a job and, although the rate for this particular job is grossly over-inflated, that rate is tied to the job and not to the individual who holds the post.
If I were the shop steward in this dispute, I would argue to the hon. Member for Angus, East that the proper course of action would be not to reduce the salary, but to give a verbal warning to the incumbent of the post about his failings. If that was not sufficient, I would follow it up with a written warning, and if the individual still failed to carry out his duties properly he could get the sack. The same argument applied to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor.
The Leader of the House could be saved from that eventual fate if Members such as the hon. Members for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and others who suddenly acquire a great interest in Scotland late at night or during Scottish questions were willing to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. That would solve the problem, and the House would stop wasting its time in this fashion.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is one point on which I would not wish the House to be under any misapprehension. The notion was put across, as a result of some intervention,


that if the order were to fall, ministerial salaries would be increased more substantially than if the order were passed. I must remove that misapprehension from hon. Members' minds. If the order fell, Ministers in another place would get nothing and Ministers in this House would get an increase of only £1,953. I hope that those who are moved with sympathy for the motion will retain that emotion firmly in the front of their minds.
I shall say nothing about the observations of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who claims as one of his leisure-time occupations the role of writer of fiction and who tried his best in his speech. I turn to the observations which have flickered recurrently across the debate and which came from hon. Members from north of the border, particularly the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). The simple answer to their question is that the issue of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was debated on 20 December 1988, as I said in the debate on the Loyal Address. The conclusion was reached when the House recognised the inability of the Committee of Selection to nominate Members to serve on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee in accordance with Standing Order No. 104(2). That was a conclusion reached by the House, not by me. I urge the hon. Member for Govan to disabuse himself of the idea that there has been any fix by the establishment and still more to disabuse himself of the idea that by making such allegations he can establish a kind of pre-emptive alibi for himself.

Mr. Salmond: The conclusion to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers was reached last Session. Does he not think that there is a responsibility in this new Session to have a fresh debate on whether the House will obey its Standing Orders? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as Leader of the House, feel some special responsibility for seeing the implementation of Standing Order No. 130?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Because I recognised the importance of that point, I addressed myself to the issue and made the position clear in my first speech in the current Session in the debate on the Loyal Address, notwithstanding a certain amount of unwelcoming hubbub from the Opposition.

Mr. Sillars: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am afraid that I will not give way, because I must draw to a conclusion.
I appreciated the support from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), who was alert, as always, in our interests; my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), who is always the source of helpful quotations of many kinds; and, above all, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), who gave us a lucid exposition of his analysis of the causes of inflation. Like him, I am a monetarist. I regard monetary supply as having great importance in the control of inflation. I would go a little further—I regard the exemplary management of salaries as a sensible part of good management, not to be entirely disregarded in achieving a sensible reaction to proper monetary discipline. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's other point that

differentials tend to get squeezed disagreeably at a time of inflation. That is a strong reason for seeking to get on top of inflation.
My judgment about the validity of the salaries that are generally available under this Administration has been that they have been sufficient to recruit and retain Ministers of suitable talent. Here I look at my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). There was a happy time—I hope that it was happy—when he served as my parliamentary private secretary. Suddenly, he was offered a ministerial position, and the massive enhancement in salary was sufficient to recruit him to the Front Bench forthwith and retain him there ever since. That is a fairly practical judgment.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Maryhill, who sought to protect me from the erosion of my salary even though she threatened me with the prospect of a verbal ticking off from herself, which is almost more alarming.
I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 17.

Division No. 16]
[11.34 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Harris, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Amess, David
Hayes, Jerry


Amos, Alan
Hind, Kenneth


Arbuthnot, James
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Atkinson, David
Irvine, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Jack, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Janman, Tim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Boswell, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bright, Graham
Latham, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lilley, Peter


Buck, Sir Antony
Maclean, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Malins, Humfrey


Chapman, Sydney
Mans, Keith


Chope, Christopher
Martlew, Eric


Colvin, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dixon, Don
Miller, Sir Hal


Dorrell, Stephen
Mills, Iain


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mitchell, Sir David


Durant, Tony
Moss, Malcolm


Favell, Tony
Neubert, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fishburn, John Dudley
Nicholls, Patrick


Fookes, Dame Janet
Norris, Steve


Forman, Nigel
Page, Richard


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Paice, James


Forth, Eric
Patnick, Irvine


Foster, Derek
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Freeman, Roger
Pawsey, James


French, Douglas
Pike, Peter L.


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Gill, Christopher
Porter, David (Waveney)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Portillo, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Rhodes James, Robert


Gregory, Conal
Ryder, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hague, William
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Sims, Roger


Hanley, Jeremy
Skeet, Sir Trevor






Speller, Tony
Warren, Kenneth


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. David Lightbown and


Waller, Gary
Mr. Michael Fallon.


NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Parry, Robert


Beggs, Roy
Salmond, Alex


Beith, A. J.
Sillars, Jim


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Skinner, Dennis


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Wallace, James


Campbell-Savours, D. N.



Cryer, Bob
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Michael Welsh and


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.


Meale, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

ESTIMATES

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Report [28th November] of the Liaison Committee—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

PETITIONS

Broadcasting (Deaf People)

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I wish to present a petition signed by 10,000 people in Wales on behalf of the deaf community. They are concerned

that the broadcasters are not providing complete access for deaf television viewers, for example, with subtitles or sign language; the number of viewers affected are at least 4 million; deaf viewers, as equal members of the general public, are entitled to equal access to television programmes.
The petition states:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will ensure that legislation be passed placing an obligation on television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people by using Teletext subtitles, sign language and other means and to reach complete coverage by a fixed date.
I strongly endorse the view that broadcasters should be under an obligation to ensure that the deaf community has full access to television programmes through the use of sign language and subtitles and by other means.

To lie upon the Table.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I have a similar petition, which was presented to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) and me at a recent meeting of the Glasgow association for deaf people. The petition carries about 8,000 signatures from people living in Glasgow and surrounding areas. The petitioners argue that
the broadcasters are not providing complete access for deaf television viewers, for example, with subtitles or sign language; the number of viewers affected are at least 4 million; deaf viewers, as equal members of the general public, are entitled to equal access to television programmes.
They, too, pray that the House
will ensure that legislation be passed placing an obligation on television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people by using Teletext subtitles, sign language and other means.

To lie upon the Table.

Leicestershire Knitwear Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Michael Latham: At a slightly earlier hour than one had feared, I am glad to welcome my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to this short debate about the desperate plight of the Leicestershire knitwear industry. As my hon. Friend is an east midlands Member himself, I am sure that he will be knowledgeable. I hope that he will also be sympathetic. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) in his place. As a Government Whip, he is not allowed to speak in the debate, but I know of his longstanding commitment to those of his constituents who work in the knitwear industry.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), who is unwell, and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who has a prior commitment away from the House, and the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) who, sadly, has had a close relative suddenly taken ill, have all sent me good wishes for the debate and strong expressions of support for the Leicestershire knitwear industry. Any Leicestershire Member who seeks to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have my permission to speak. This is a united cause for us all because the largest industrial sector in our county is the knitting and clothing industry which currently employs 33,000 people in 490 companies. Alas, that number seems to be diminishing daily.
Last Tuesday here in Westminster, Leicestershire Members met representatives of employers and trade unions. I do not overstate it if I say that they were desperate. They are not given to exaggeration—I have met them many times in nearly 16 years in the House—but some of the most famous and honoured industrial names in the county—firms such as Corah, and Kemptons, which also has a factory in Grantham—and many others have experienced major closures, receivership or significant redundancies. The trade union, the National Association of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers, has been notified of 3,500 job losses in Leicestershire between June 1988 and 1989, but there have been many more since and the true figure is much higher. The industry's leaders stressed to us last week that the position had never been worse. Leicestershire Members cannot accept such grave damage to one of our most basic and honoured local industries. We have to raise our voice in concern, as we are doing in this debate.
As the industry sees it, the main problem is economic, with the pound and interest rates too high. As a result, imports flood in, exports are penalised and British jobs are lost. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State cannot do much about those problems because they are basic economic questions. The pound has fallen recently, which I welcome, and I hope that interest rates will be cut in the Budget, even if taxes have to be raised.
However, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade can do something about the trading environment. There must be a renewed multi-fibre arrangement after July 1991. The existing MFA should be toughened and better enforced. Why does it take so long to restrain sudden surges of imports? Why should countries that are not EEC members and have only applied to join, such as Turkey, he given

zero tariffs to export to EEC countries such as Britain when Turkey has a 125 per cent. duty against our imports? What about the United States of America with its 30 per cent. duty? The Americans exclude textile and clothing imports from their generalised scheme of preferences. Why cannot the EEC act much more speedily and much less bureaucratically to enforce ceilings which should limit duty-free quantities under the EEC's own generalised scheme of preferences?
Why did we, as part of the EEC and as a trading and manufacturing nation, boot the ball so effortlessly into our own goal by making it difficult to know the country of origin of manufactured goods? It would be highly desirable and it is still possible under EEC rules for all retailers to declare the true country of origin of their knitwear and hosiery so as to provide such information to customers. Mail order catalogues could play an important role by allowing housewives or other home shoppers to know the real country of origin of the goods that interest them in the catalogues.
All Leicestershire Members regularly visit knitwear factories in the county or related operations, such as yarn throwsters and machine manufacturers, or go to see the splendid work that is done in our local education institutions, such as Leicester polytechnic, which is a world leader in knitwear technology. When we go round such factories, we do not see an obsolete sunset industry. Instead we see modern technology, bright and imaginative design, high standards of production and a very responsible and mostly female work force with excellent industrial relations. It is certainly not highly paid, but it has moved well with the times, especially over the past 10 years. But now it is in an utterly dejected state, with many of its finest firms fighting for their very existence.
The Minister has seen the brief prepared by the Leicester and District Knitting Industry Association because I provided it for him last night. I beg him to appreciate the crisis that is overwhelming this vital industry in Leicestershire and to take action with other Ministers to help it now. I invite other Leicestershire colleagues to share the experiences of their constituents with the Minister in the remainder of this short debate.

Mr. Greville Janner: I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) not only for raising this matter tonight but for kindly giving time to his colleagues from Leicestershire to comment. As he said, this is a concern that we share, for the knitwear and hosiery industry in Leicestershire provides work for fewer of our constituents than it did and is in a bad way.
In the 19 years that I have been in the House, this traditional and essential industry has never been in a more desperate plight. I join the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton and other Leicestershire Members in calling on the Government to step in and help the industry before it slides away into total disaster.
In the past, mainly the badly managed companies have gone under. When Kemptons, a respected, well-managed and first-class business in my constituency, went into the hands of the receiver, we knew that the time had come for urgent action. I hope that it will be forthcoming.

Mr. David Ashby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for raising this vital issue. Like most hon. Members who represent Leicestershire constituencies, I have in my area a number of companies involved in the knitwear industry and I well know their problems. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the meeting that was held in the House with other Members last week, but I am grateful for all the information that I have been given following the meeting, and I have been able to understand more the problems of the firms.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the problem is essentially one of cheap goods, low wages and undercutting our industry—in all, amounting to unfair competition. The only solution lies in the renewal of the multi-fibre arrangement. I implore the Minister to examine that agreement and—remembering our partners in the EEC—renew it, because that is essential for our industry.
We must look after this industry. It is ailing and it needs all the help that it can get. It is essential for the agreement to be renewed to give it that much-needed help.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I, too, thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for giving us time in his debate. I also pay tribute to the speech earlier today in another debate of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). This is certainly a Leicestershire day in the House.
The House will recall that on 30 June 1988 I initiated an Adjournment debate on the Leicestershire textile industry. Then, as now, I paid tribute to the work of the employers in Leicester and to the National Union of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers, whose members, like hon. Members on both sides, are united in the defence of the industry. Indeed, the last time we spoke in a similar way was in a debate on policing, again initiated by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, and that resulted in 51 extra police officers being allocated to Leicestershire.
This is indeed an industry in crisis. The number of job losses nationally in the past six months has been 2,800, and locally 1,500. In the last year, the industry has lost over 7,000 jobs—more than 10 per cent. of the entire industry—4,000 of them in Leicestershire. As other hon. Members have mentioned, firms that were household names—Kemptons, Corah and many others—have suffered because of the damage.
The damage is due, first, to the high interest rates that are currently the policy of the Government; secondly, to the current level of the pound; and thirdly, and most important, to the extremely high level of imports. It is impossible for manufacturers in my constituency and in the city of Leicester to compete with the current high level of imports.
Only two weeks ago the Minister came to my constituency to visit J. & S. Garments. He saw the way in which manufacturers are attempting to compete with the high level of imports. It is impossible for them to do so. Productivity, output, job losses and the preparations that must be made for 1992 are clear signs that the industry is in deep trouble.
The industry demands assisted area status, and I support that. It demands renewal of the MFA in1991, and I support that. If this trend continues, in 10 years' time

there will be no textile industry in Leicestershire. The industry goes back to the 16th century and its history has embellished the social fabric of our county. I urge the Minister to act now.

12 midnight

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on having secured this Adjournment debate which gives him the opportunity to explain to the House the concerns that he and other Members representing the county of Leicester have about the knitwear industry. I am afraid that he flattered me in one respect. I am not the Minister for Trade within the Department for Trade and Industry. My noble Friend Lord Trefgarne is the Minister for Trade, and I shall ensure that he has every opportunity to understand the anxieties expressed in tonight's debate.
It is never possible to hear news of any factory closing or redundancies occurring with anything other than a deep sense of regret. However, I must say that it is not useful to suggest that the solutions to the industry's problems lie with the Government. The truth is that many and probably most of them lie beyond the control of Government and are inherent in the nature of the industry being undertaken. All are the product of external circumstances, for example, weather and fashion, and beyond the control of Government.
It is interesting that in rather a useful paper produced by the Knitting Industries Federation dated 4 April 1989 the 10-point plan pays considerable attention to the steps that the industry should take. I agree that many of the solutions lie primarily within the control of the industry.
I shall consider the state of the knitwear industry in Leicester and the effects that the downturn of the industry is having on the local economy. I understand that the 1987 census showed that about 34,755 people were employed in the county's textile industry, which is equivalent to about 9·6 per cent. of the working population. Clearly there has been a substantial number of redundancies between November 1988 and October 1989. The figures given in the House tonight have not been wholly consistent and are not wholly compatible with the figures before me, but let us not fall out over such matters. A substantial number of redundancies have occurred.
I am aware of the redundancies that have occurred at Kemptons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said, Kemptons has a factory in my constituency. Curiously, the redundancies have not yet shown up dramatically in the unemployment figures. Until October 1989 unemployment continued to fall. In October 1989 the percentage unemployed in Leicestershire was 4·5 per cent. compared with 5·6 per cent. at the same time last year. That represents a fall of nearly 5,000 during the same period. In the Leicester travel-to-work area, unemployment was 5 per cent. compared with 5·9 per cent. the previous year, a reduction of 2,308. It is interesting to note that jobcentres are still advertising vacancies in the knitwear industry locally and that there is a particular shortage of workers with skills to offer.
Although one would not wish to minimise the impact of recent closures on the families of those concerned, it seems that vacancies exist at least for the more highly skilled workers and that there should be good prospects for finding employment. Those facts are also relevant to the


proposal by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) that Leicester should be given assisted area status. There is no prospect of that, for two reasons. First, we have made it plain that we have no plans to change the map within the lifetime of this Parliament. That remains our policy. Secondly, and much more substantively, I am afraid that the unemployment figures do not even begin to justify making Leicestershire an assisted area. For example, the unemployment rate in the Leicester travel-to-work area is 5 per cent. That is far below the average rate in development areas, which is 11·9 per cent., or the average rate in intermediate areas, which is 8·3 per cent.

Mr. Janner: That is an unfair way of putting what is already a difficult case for the Minister. The travel-to-work area includes areas where there is no unemployment as well as areas such as Braunstone in my constituency where there are still vast numbers of unemployed people. We are talking about unemployment in the hosiery and knitwear industries and so far the Minister has offered no help.

Mr. Hogg: I was dealing with a specific point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East who asked that Leicester or Leicestershire should be given assisted status. There is no possible justification for doing that. An important criterion, although not the only one, is the level of unemployment and, with 5 per cent. in the Leicester travel-to-work area, there is no possible justification for making Leicester part of an assisted area. I do not want to arouse expectations about that because it will not happen.
I shall now turn to the multi-fibre and GATT arrangements. Those matters were touched on by hon. Members and are extremely important. In general, the Government do not believe that it is helpful to increase trade barriers as that only invites other countries to retaliate or follow suit. Generally, it diminishes trade and as a trading nation it is in our best interests to expand rather than to restrict trade.

Mr. Vaz: Other Governments are assisting their textile and hosiery industries. It is a question not of fair competition but of unfair competition because other Governments are subsidising their industries.

Mr. Hogg: That is not a reason for derogating from the general principle that I have outlined. It is a reason for toughening the GATT provisions, and I shall shortly turn to that. The hon. Gentleman's intervention did not make clear whether he was referring to subsidies in the European Community or without it. If there are subsidies in the European Community, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would bring them to my attention.

Mr. Vaz: Rover, although it is not a textile company.

Mr. Hogg: It is not a textile company by any standard. That is not even a helpful point for the hon. Gentleman to make to support his case. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of subsidies within the European Community that is relevant to the textile industry, he must let us know, because the Commission would like to investigate.
Like their predecessors, the present Government have recognised the special problems faced by the United Kingdom textile and clothing industry. Under the MFA, a wide range of textile and clothing imports from major low-cost suppliers are restrained. Let me mention in passing, however, that the main part of the problem is

caused by the fact that the countries concerned are low-cost countries, many of which have much lower wage costs than ours. That is the essential difficulty, and we should not blind ourselves to its importance.
As a major derogation from GATT, the MFA has always been seen as a temporary arrangement, designed to give industry in developed countries a breathing space in which to adjust to new competition. GATT Ministers are generally already committed by the Punta del Este declaration—made at the start of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations—to phasing out the MFA on the basis of strengthened GATT rules and disciplines. That, I believe, is the way forward. Exactly how it will be dealt with is the subject of negotiations that will continue throughout the round, but the European Community has repeatedly made it clear that the phasing out of the MFA must be accompanied by a reinforcing of those GATT rules and disciplines.
It is our firm objective to achieve, in particular, a more effective safeguard to protect against sudden surges of imports, to improve provision to deal with unfair trade and intellectual property rights, and to provide greater access for our exports to developing-country markets—particularly the more developed ones—through a reduction in their own tariff and non-tariff barriers. The Commission also maintains—and this is generally accepted in GATT—that there must be a gradual transition towards the full integration of the textiles and clothing sector into GATT. That would give industry a further period in which to adjust; the length and nature of that period is, however, a matter for negotiation.
It would be wrong for me to try to persuade the House that the MFA will be extended permanently, for that is not the case. The plain truth is that this aspect of trade must be brought within GATT, but, to the extent that it is necessary, GATT rules must be strengthened to provide more safeguards in the respects that I have identified, and also to allow a proper period of transition.

Mr. Latham: I hope that we can get one point absolutely clear—that there can be no question of British Ministers allowing the MFA to expire until new Uruguay rules are firmly in place.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but it must be resolved within the context of the negotiations in GATT. In the end, it will be a GATT decision. British Ministers will urge the case as best they can, but the decisions will be made in GATT, and—as my hon. Friend will appreciate—we do not have an automatic or self-evident veto.
Meanwhile, there are steps that we can all take to assist the industry—and, primarily, that the industry can take to assist itself. I shall not go into much detail, because the hour is late, but there is scope for further research and development. There is, indeed, scope for collaborative ventures in which the Government are prepared to play a part. I am somewhat disappointed that there are not more applicants for assistance in that regard, and I should like to think that further applications will be presented for appropriate schemes.
We can also do a certain amount to improve the industry's competitiveness—for example, through the consultancy initiative. We have also participated with the working groups in an effort to expand exports and encourage improvements in design.
We have to look forward to the time when the industry will be working within the general GATT rules and trying to make itself more competitive by focusing its efforts on those parts of the market where Britain has an obvious lead. To suppose otherwise is to peddle an illusion. I know that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton nor the hon. Member for Leicester, East wishes to

do that. It is a serious problem, but it will not be solved by peddling solutions that do not achieve that purpose. It can be solved only by trying to make the British industry as competitive as any in those sectors where there is a reasonable prospect of survival. I invite hon. Members to agree that that is the way forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.